Response To An Opponent of the Resolution to Strike Syria

I appreciate your actions and your desire for me to join moveon.org in calling on Congress to vote no. I have given this difficult matter a lot of thought and, as my latest tweet (posted on Facebook as well) indicates, it has not been an easy thing. I just happened upon Rep. Alan Grayson's statement on Huff Post Live which I feel gave some very convincing reasons as to why we should not bomb Syria and is perhaps the closest thing to helping me make up my mind to speak up as you did.

However, I wish to discuss a few other considerations, the least of which is the fact that you are also joined by Congressman Ted Cruze and Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in your opposition to the strike.

I don't think we can talk about chemical weapons lightly and look on as people are not only slaughtered by chemically mutated, the way they were in Hitler's gas chambers and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is too easy to be an absolute pacifist while lives are destroyed and I have never advocated this approach to standing firmly on the side of life. For this reason, to take the gamble and send a forceful message to those who would see this as an opportunity to, in the future, exhibit this extreme brutality on people and get away with it, is a bet I would rather take than take the gamble on ignoring this as if it isn't happening.

I also feel that paralleling this situation with Iraq is a vast disrespect to the care and caution that President Obama has taken in going into this, including his willingness to put this to a vote in Congress, in stark contrast to the eagerness with which his predecessor, President Bush, was so eager to go to war, using 9-11 as a very bad but effective pretext to cajole the members of Congress to make it unnecessary for him to take the action he took unilaterally. Secondly, there was no situation in Iraq in 2002 or 2003 that could even remotely be construed to warrant the invasion whereas the use of chemical weapons as well as the horrible way in which Assad has systematically gone about slaughtering his own people makes this something which cannot be ignored. To be sure, the legitimacy of the rebel forces is questionable at best and we have no way of knowing what an invasion will lead to. But we have no way of knowing what doing nothing will lead to either. However, I think if any parallel should be made, I would feel what we are doing is more akin to the bombings of Bosnia and Kosovo not Iraq and there is the strong possibility that all the fears people have of what could happen are only fears and not anything provable.

If I had responded to you two days ago, I probably would have said that it would probably have been useless to ask my Congressman, Bill Pascrell, to vote against it because I felt he would definitely be for it (in great contrast to the man I voted for in the Democratic primary, my former Congressman Steve Rothman, before New Jersey redistricted these two sitting Democratic Congressmen into having vie for the same seat, who I know would have adamantly opposed it.) However, I see he is as undecided as I am:

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story.”

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/01/after-meeting-with-obama-lawmakers-skeptical-on-syria-attack/)

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his constituents in this politically mixed yet left-leaning district (moderately left-leaning) are opposed and he's been hearing from them. In fact, this "Buzz..." flash reports as much:

'At a town hall in Cliffside, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell found an audience almost unanimously opposed to any U.S. action in Syria.

“We shouldn’t be involved in Syria whatsoever,” a constituent said to applause from the audience. “We are not the world police.”

“I understand what you’re saying. I understand we don’t want to get involved in other people’s problems,” Pascrell, who supports a U.S. military response to Syria said. “When chemical weapons are used, then it’s a whole different ballgame.”'

(http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-their-districts-members-of-congress-demanded-a-syria-vote)

Senator Menendez chaired the committee that put forth the resolution on Tuesday so his position is clear.

(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/04/senate-syria-committee-vote/2762415/)

Senator Lautenberg, as you know is dead, so I do not have another senator to contact.  The candidate I am supporting to be the new Senator, Cory Booker, you will be disappointed to learn, made somewhat of a shift after opposing the intervention:

"After making an impassioned case earlier this week against another war, the senate candidate defers to Obama’s judgement. “I expect that the president will clearly delineate what the strategic objectives are,” says Booker."

(http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/cory-booker-walks-back-opposition-to-military-intervention-i)

I recommend reading the entire Buzzfeed article because it resonates with how I feel.

But there's another fact I wish to consider here as well. I don't know if you saw "The Butler" because it will help shed a little light on what Obama's really up against, and that doesn't just concern this issue. I would recommend you go see it if you haven't and then re-read this paragraph. There's a dirty little secret in the U.S. Government which is really not so much a secret. President Eisenhower--in vain, of coursed--warned against it quite eloquently (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html) and it is what murdered President Kennedy. In two words: "Joint Chiefs". Now why do I bring up the movie, "The Butler", which deals with racism, in the context of a discussion on war, politics and the military? Because racism has everything to do with why Obama has had to be so, so careful in how he has conducted himself as President. To be sure, any Democrat with any inkling of a desire to scale back or limit the activity of this very powerful branch of our government which has clearly shown itself to have an existence hugely independent of the government and certainly of any administration, being only one of three of our government's branches, has quickly found himself up against one of the most profitable industries in the world, second only, perhaps to that other, climate-changing one, oil. And ironically, the very thing which has caused oil barons to shift their focus from the Middle East to backdoor right here at home--Middle East unrest--has made military barons salivate with greed at the grand opportunity to foment and seize upon any conflict possible. It is clear who has called the shots for decades, much to what would be Eisenhower's dismay were he alive today, and the presence of a black man in the "highest" official office in the land is certainly not going to be any obstacle to them no matter what position Obama were to take. But it's quite another thing to Obama. I'm sure Obama does not see his being black as the biggest loss to working harder for peace and opposing war with the same zeal that folks at moveon.org and Bold Progressives have been able to display with great alacrity. I believe he feels that to give in on this matter (as he has on all of his positions with respect to the military since he assumed office) will afford him more leeway and opportunity to accomplish the things he actually can achieve (which alone is remarkable with a Congress that has destroyed all the bills he sent to them and given him only legislation diametrically opposed to everything he believes in and a Supreme Court which has rendered decisions making it clear that he has no support in their corner either). But go see "The Butler". You will understand what I am talking about a lot more clearly, I feel, after you do.

In 1962, the world was in a position as grave in some ways as the one we're in now. The United States and the Soviet Union sat facing each other with missiles each pointed at the other one that, if even one were fired, could invoke disastrous consequences on the entire world. And while some may underestimate the situation we're in now as being as grave, I know you, for one, are not one of those. You know, as well as I do, that one simple strike, even of limited scope, could easily erupt into a region-wide conflict that could then lead to even graver, unthinkable consequences for people all over the world. But when Kennedy sat in that room, both together with his closest advisers as well as alone, he knew that any decision he would make would not be an easy one. He knew what was at stake and probably wished so many times during those 13 days that he could be anywhere else than have to decide the fate of the world. I am of the utmost confidence that Obama feels exactly the same way and nothing he is saying or doing is easy for him. I also have developed a new found respect for my Congressman, who I voted for in the election but against in the primary, for appreciating how difficult this decision is even with so many of his constituents loudly calling for him not to support this resolution. My hope is that this plays out as that crisis did back 51 years ago, though I know that hindsight gives you the benefit of a doubt that cannot never be assuaged by easy answers. All I ccan truly offer at this time are my deep prayers for the safety and life of every human being and for this massive barbarity in Syria to end with minimal if any sacrifice. It is for this reason that I will make sure to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with as much muster as I can bring to it and I hope those who are reading this will join me as I know many of you have been already. Ultimately, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed us, if it can show us anything, is that that which unites us gives us our best hope, not that which divides us along partisan, political and ethnic lines. It is for this reason that I think and act as I do. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give thought to and voice my feelings on this very serious matter.

The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 8

Day 8: I wrote this series of articles because I wanted to offer something that had come to me that no one else was talking about (because of the walls we all put up—except me, of course—between the various things we label, such as religions and other touchy subjects) yet which the article in Living Buddhism plus the occurrence of Hanukkah at this time gave me the courage to finally share. I believed that in sharing this secret knowledge—or at least introducing it, as I haven't even begun to scratch the surface—I might set a ball of progressive thought and ideas in motion if even only one person reading this was inspired enough to take me up on it. Every religion lapses into a state of orthodoxy. Once in a very long while, someone courageous enough comes along and challenges that static orthodoxy, and a new religion is born, fresh with genuine ideas for humanity's betterment. And then it too lapses into formality and structure and people, instead of being inspired by its founding ideals to embark on a unique, courageous life, instead cling to its rituals, in effect avoiding the very thing it was supposed to help them accomplish—live uniquely and courageously. This is true of atheism as well as every other form of secular humanism, few people really doing the hard work of maintaining a critical mind about all things, particularly that which they themselves believe, but instead clinging to commonly accepted notions of truth and reality because that's what gets them through the day. Yes, growth is not easy while stagnation is. But struggle, as SGI President Ikeda says, is the nature of all things, and this becomes readily apparent if we observe animal and plant life closely as they struggle every day against the elements and all kinds of vicissitudes. Like Oedipus, we've invented myriad ways to avoid struggle, only struggle stands before us in every direction whether we like it or not.

And yes, even SGI members, as sincere as they are, are more wont to repeat, to parrot the words of their mentors, afraid to reinvent the wheel by being too original in their approach. However, I feel that if we are truly to realize the benefit of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the supreme virtue that we must recognize is that, while actively share the struggles of our mentors and fellow members, we must never look outside of ourselves, to that which other people have said, even if they are completely correct for our own answers. For the whole purpose of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is to realize the truth that is both eternal and unique to each moment and situation from within our own lives and from that contribute something great to humanity. For if we were to depend on another person, as the Catholics do, or a book, as the Protestants do, just to use a couple of examples to describe the whole gamut of these other belief systems, which include atheism and other forms of secular humanism, then we will have thrown away the greatest treasure, the most precious gem that Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is—our life, our Buddha wisdom, itself. And then our religion or belief system will have really nothing to stand out from the others. So my quest here was less to convince non-Buddhists of the supreme benefit of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as it was to hopefully open the minds of SGI members to the great treasure in their own lives and traditions from before the embraced Buddhism that they are overlooking, to break down the walls that separate us from others and to open the doors and allow fresh air to circulate inward and outward. In 1272, the same watershed year the Nichiren wrote perhaps his most important work in some respects, The Opening of the Eyes, as he was in the middle of his brutally severe exile in the harsh cold of Sado Island, a monk named Thomas Aquinas wrote his earth-shattering work entitled Summa Theologica, which reversed centuries of the Platonic dualistic orientation of Christianity by stating that everything is God and God is everything. Perhaps the Church did not get the implications of what he was saying when the later canonized him as a Saint, but isn't that the way things usually turn out, eh? Aquinas lived in a very enlightened part of the world at that time, the south of France, in which Christians, Jews and Moslems lived side by side, inspired by each other and coming up with some of the most amazing writings of all time, of which Aquinas' is just one. And we think ours is the enlightened age... A year later, in 1273, also in that part of the world, the seminal work of Jewish Mysticism, known as the Zohar, was written. Finally recognizing, as Aristotle was forced to admit in a sort of footnote, which he coined the “first cause”, that the didactic and the logical has its limits and that there is something that transcends this construct of the human mind (upon which Talmudic Judaism had relied for centuries), the Zohar spoke of the 10 emanations, without mentioning by name to what or to whom they referred, emanations that are essentially all human qualities, but good ones, ones associated with God. The highest, first, of these is called “Ayin” which literally means “nothing”. Like the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings, which is the introductory sutra to the Lotus Sutra, which postulates 34 negations, statements negating the “true entity” as being anything among 17 pairs of opposites, so as to say that the true entity is none of these, this also sets us up for something different that is not anything of this world and can't be described by any human words. However, hidden in this, as the text of the Zohar then pulls the curtain back to reveal, is the true entity, so to speak that is hidden in those 10 emanations of God. And guess what that is called: “Ein sof”. Now the thing you need to know is that Hebrew is not written with vowels, only with consonants, which is why it is possible to say that Nam-myoho-renge-kyo actually contains within it the name of God. The word “Ein”, meaning without, is the same word, i.e. using the same consonants as the word, “ayin” which means nothing. But “Ein sof” literally means without end or no end. Suddenly the negative is transformed into an endless positive. Just as the Chinese character “mu”, the silent character at the end of Nam (which would literally be pronounced Na-mu if it were pronounced, but thank goodness it isn't otherwise the daimoku would be very arrhythmic), which literally means not or without, when paired with the words “ryo” (measure) or “hen” (boundary), means immeasurable and boundless, in other words omnipresent, omniexistent. The Zohar talks about the contraction which God had to perform in order to create the world out of Himself. Hence, it is clear that the Zohar also bridges the gap between man and God, between Buddha and ordinary being. Isn't it curious that these two works came out right after Nichiren, by succeeding in not being executed at Tatsunokuchi Beach when a bright comet or orb flashed across the sky scaring the executioners, revealed himself as the Buddha of the Latter Day (which I believe that his revealing of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo would be enough for him to be the Buddha of the Latter Day)? How connected this world is.

I know I'm probably treading on a lot of toes in presenting all this and I also know that I'm making a lot of people uncomfortable. Perhaps the one saving grace is that very few people are likely to be reading this so most that receive it or see it posted won't get offended. And, after all, haven't I already stated in my Essential Teaching or Secular Humanism lecture on Day 4 that the gap between man and God, between man and Buddha has already been eliminated? Well, not quite. The Essential Teaching does not reveal how we can make use of this fact that we already possess Buddhahood, nor does secular humanism offer any hope for humanity, merely an alternate way of looking at truth. I know that to many, my presentation of Nichiren Buddhism as the thought system offering a better solution—in fact, the only solution—must seem quite illogical because isn't religion what we're moving away from? But that's where the scientific reasoning of secular humanism can be deceptive (although scientific reasoning can also prove the validity of Nichiren Buddhism using both empiric and deductive methods). Because by identifying it as religion versus non-religion, you are only shedding light on one of many parameters that need to be looked at to investigate a belief system before you're able to definitely come to a conclusion about it. And, as I said I think quite a few times, we're not looking for an extreme but a middle ground, one that embraces the essential truth that is really at the heart of all the teachings.

Thus, I hope that what I have presented gives all of you, whether SGI member or non-SGI member some new ideas to ponder on. While of course I don't want you to close the door to this conversation, nonetheless, rather than diving in the deep end, all I ask—and this is meant for all of you—is that you ponder, entertain the thoughts I am sharing, with this one other thought in mind: What will really save humanity from the humongous problems we are all now facing? And, if you are convinced that nothing will save humanity and that we are doomed to undergo Armageddon within a year or two or three or ten or fifty, ask yourself this: What have I got to lose by speculating on this and seeing if maybe I'll prove myself wrong? Every day, a million things come up to give me a reason to believe I have been a great fool for following the path I am following. But you know what keeps me going? Not the full knowledge that despite what my circumstances seem to be trying to tell me, I'm right anyway, but that as long as I have nothing to lose fighting these voices, I'm doing what seems to be the most meritorious thing prized among people—I am waging the good fight. For that, like Jesus, Martin Luther King and the many others who no one would consider a loser, even should the worst present itself as my mortal end, I will still have won if at least one other person is inspired by my example of not letting go of hope. And for that, I know that whatever belief system, crazy as it may seem to you to be, I use to inspire me to go on, that indeed is the winning belief system. For now, I will end this, go back to my job, my movies and the other endeavors of my life and leave the rest of this discussion to you. Thank you for taking the time to listen.

The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 7

Day 7: Today is almost the final day of this festival and as you can see I've been devoting all 4 of the second set of 4 days to the shamash, the pinnacle candle, the source of light for all the other candles. This is because what I am trying to do, as has been documented already, is the hardest thing possible. In the last episode, I presented irrefutable proof of the superiority of Nichiren's Buddhism (known in the 5th and final comparison as the Buddhism of Sowing (Living Buddhism Nov-Dec 2010, p. 97), as compared with the Buddhism of the Harvest. Let's look at the concept for a minute. Shakyamuni's Buddhism is called the Buddhism of the Harvest because although he spoke of the True Cause of his enlightenment in the Life Span Chapter (“Ga hon gyo bosatsu do”, “Originally I practiced the bodhisattva way”) (Someone else, if it's alright, please provide the reference for this because I haven't been able to purchase the Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Chapters yet, but that's the book it's from), he didn't mention what that is. His being a Buddha since he did that practice eons ago is called True Effect. Because his being the Buddha is an effect all can see clearly whereas the cause he made, although stated, is not shared to enable one to understand it (his own disciples having made enough causes in their own previous lives that they could attain Buddhahood just through hearing this Life Span Chapter), it is considered the Buddhism of the Harvest. But since Nichiren cut to the chase and stated directly what the True Cause is, chanting and embracing Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, a simple practice anyone can do (the rest of what you need to know coming out of your own life from chanting this phrase), his Buddhism, which SGI members practice, is considered the Buddhism of True Cause. And one can easily observe SGI members outdoing everyone else in making causes for other people's happiness if one puts oneself in an environment where SGI members come together. And I started to talk about the effects. But the fact is that you can't just stand on the sidelines hoping the effects will become apparent. You have to get into the act yourself. You have to start making those causes to help other people yourself, even if it goes against your grain. You also have to start believing in yourself if such is not presently the case, to believe you have unlimited power for good, for the attainment of something powerful to contribute to humanity, that you are at least as important a player as anyone else, and that each person's contribution is of inestimable value. That's a lot to bite off, I know. Hence, why we chant. And faith in what will come has to be a part of it since you have to make the cause first, even though the effect is instantaneous, though many don't see it in their lives.

But why do I have to participate in this creation of world peace when I don't want to. Maybe I'm happy right now and don't need anything more than what I have in life. Or maybe I'm not really happy but I'm comfortable enough and as long as I keep going along with the program I've been following, I'm not going to get concerned with or involved in anything outside that. To be sure, each one of the preceding philosophies I mentioned, even paganism, has its value. How much more so, having shown clear proof of their benefit, are Judeo-Christianity, Christianity, self-empowered Christianity (i.e. Protestantism) and secular humanism absolutely wonderful systems that are enough for whoever wants them. And indeed, there are lots of people today practicing each one of them who seem to be doing very well. For, as I already showed, they are all great philosophies based on the best of human potential. Those of the earlier systems obviously won't be convinced by my argument for the greater efficaciousness of the latter systems. How much more, then, will no one be convinced of my endeavor to show the greater proof of Nichiren Buddhism? Indeed, as was the case in Nichiren's time, even the most convincing and logical sounding arguments are somehow not enough to move people to believe that what they've just heard is really going to benefit them. Every day, one hears accidents being reported on the radio and TV, as drivers, though they've heard over and over the benefit of driving safely and defensively, either become bold, become impatient, or panic thinking they might be late to work, accidents that could have been avoided had they followed what they had heard and that even made sense to them. The human animal is far from the logical reasoning being that we have always hoped we were. What will shake us into sense?

If nothing else, let's look at the ways in which the other 4 systems are coming up short. I mentioned vast inequality of wealth not being able to be taken care of. War rages on, destroying many, many lives and sapping economies. And although more people than ever before enjoy political freedom, how much freedom do they truly enjoy? How much of the decisions affecting their lives do they truly feel they have the power to make. And now, as a result of the brilliance of science, a pernicious thing never brought about by the earlier 3 systems, or even by paganism, is putting a date on our world's end, and not in a good way, as the polar caps are melting faster than ever, vast amounts of forests providing much needed oxygen are disappearing, many forms and species of life are disappearing in ways we have no idea what impact it will have on us, and natural disasters, such as hurricanes, as well as man-caused ones, such as the yearly group of wildfires in western United States, some in very affluent areas, brought about as a result of climate change, are getting greater in number as the years go on, and yet none of these 4 systems has shown itself effective in curtailing it. Even the 3rd system, Protestantism, may be considered a partial accomplice in that it helped spur on the industrial revolution that led to the present threat on this planet. And, with nuclear stockpiles of weapons becoming less secure as political events occur threatening the stability of many parts of the world, it is almost certain that as climate change, which already threatens many densely populated areas with being underwater in the near future, heats up around the globe and the economic consequences of such became really severe, that the chance of nuclear Armageddon occurring is surely a likely possibility. I'm sorry but it's time for a reality check.

It's not the chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo will somehow magically save the world. Oh no. A lot more work than that will be needed. But it's the Buddha wisdom, the God wisdom, if you prefer, that emanates from the life of the person that chants it, that will give rise to a solution. And if the consistently recurring examples of empowerment that arise in the lives of those who chant and the true and unsurpassed aura of peace that prevails in the environments where SGI members gather are any indication, I'd say, let's give this thing at least a try since it's clear we lack the willpower to put into practice Al Gore's very wise advice about what we should be doing at the present moment but aren't. And that's just one example. Another is ending war completely and for good. Where is that occurring? So which would you prefer? Nothing to lose by switching to this strange sounding philosophy? Or everything to lose by sticking with the one we're comfortable with simply because that's how we were born, that's the environment we group up in and that's what makes sense to us?

I've already pointed out that close to 99% of everything we believe, we believe by faith, not by proof. All of the discoveries of science were discovered by other people, not us. How do we know they are correct? By faith. They work for us and thus our faith in them is strengthened. Almost none of us, and I bet no one reading this, has conducted scientific experiments to test these beliefs for empirical proof, nor has worked out the axioms and theorems in his head to satisfy analytical or deductive proof. So we just have to decide if we're willing to leap across the chasm by way of faith or stay on this side and risk what may happen due to comfort or fear.

The original purpose of these essays was not to prove the supremacy of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo but to prove the connection between Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and the belief systems of the west, to show that what Nichiren talks about in his writings can make sense to people in the west if we know where to make the substitutions. It was more to show that Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is not only the hidden truth of the Buddha's 80,000 teachings but also the hidden truth of the Bible, as well as all the myriad great works of the secular humanists. To show the connection more than the difference. To show how the Gohonzon is the embodiment of the original scroll of the Jewish Law, as, when written in Hebrew, the sacred name of God (since vowel sounds are arbitrary) are contained with the the phrease “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo”. To show that Christ and Buddha mean the same thing, only in two different language, and that pre-Nichiren Buddhism has no real claim to being closer to the truth than Christianity, both equally being preparatory, the Book of Revelations talking about the same thing in the “end time” as the Buddha did when he predicted the Latter age being one of “quarrels and disputes” (again, if someone could provide me the page reference for this, great), but that out of that something more wonderful than anything before would occur. To show that the more science uncovers, especially as it probes the metaphysical world, the more the truths people are realizing when they chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo are being uncovered.

The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 6

Day 6: It's amazing about life that when you get what you desire and it doesn't fulfill you the way you thought it would, your perspective on happiness truly changes and deepens. We saw how 4 different philosophical systems made people's lives progressively better than the previous one and arrived at the very one that seems as though, in providing for almost every need and want, should have closed the book on which philosophy is the best. Yet few today, despite all this, would agree, if any at all would, that we have arrived at the pinnacle of human existence. The suicides I mentioned are perhaps a reflection of this. It seems as if there is really no answer and that we've just been deluding ourselves all along. Maybe the ancient Greeks were right after all. No matter how fast or hard we run from pain and toward pleasure, it's all in vain. We're going to go through what we're going to go through and that's the end of it. I remember the words of my step-mother's mother, whose parents, very good people and observant Jews, died in the Holocaust, saying something that many people said after that horrendous and bloody war that caused so much horror in the lives of so many people. She said she couldn't believe in a God anymore if this is what He could allow. My wife's father felt the same way about the Buddhist temples in China after the horrors he witnessed at the hands of the Japanese in his village. They seemed to be useless money-making devices. And what does it say of science that we have been able to find a way now to eliminate all life yet we still are unable or unwilling to protect it?

Yet we've shown even in the examples I've quoted in this series, the amazing human ability to stretch ourselves beyond the limits we had previously kept ourselves entrapped within. Where does this ability come from? In 1253, a young man in Japan, who had taken to studying Buddhism at the seminary in order to understand why people were suffering and how this teaching could help end their suffering, declared that the truth hidden in only the Lotus Sutra of all the Buddha's teachings lay in chanting the phrase Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, which literally means dedication to the title of the Lotus Sutra, the mystic law lotus flower sutra. He declared that this could dispel the sufferings of all people. In doing so, he took the name Nichiren, Sun Lotus. As he felt, the sun had at last begun to rise on the long night of human history. People, upon hearing this, thought he was absolutely crazy and they became enraged when he continually declared that all the major Buddhist schools of Japan at that time were practicing erroneous teachings not in accord with what the Buddha had taught and that therefore the people were undergoing much suffering. As he continued to teach this, however, it caught on with some people, and, although they underwent much hardship as a result, those who held onto this teaching became very happy, so much so that they were even willing to risk their life to stick to it, as did 3 farmers who were beheaded in Atsuhara in 1279 for refusing to give up this faith. Nichiren himself, though many attempted to kill him several times, and though he was exiled to a very cold island in the northern sea at the worst time of year where no one was known to return from alive, from 1271 to 1274, managed to live—and not only live but live happily—for many years afterward until he died of natural causes in 1283. The high government officials and wealthy priests who were behind his persecutions, on the other hand, all died miserable deaths at the end of their lives, the ruling family being beset by internal killing.

In 1928, a Japanese educator named Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, who had developed the theory of value creation (known in Japanese as soka), a secular humanist of the highest order, encountered Nichiren's teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The following is what he himself said of his experience with this practice: “When I eventually made the firm determination to adopt this faith, I was able to affirm, in the actualities of daily life, the truth of the words of Nichiren Daishonin: 'When the skies are clear, the ground is illuminated...' (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. 1, p. 376) And with a joy that is beyond the power of words to express, I completely renewed the basis of the life I had led for almost 60 years. The sense of unease, groping my way in the dark, was entirely dissipated; my lifelong tendency to withdraw into thought disappeared; my sense of purpose in life steadily expanded in scope and ambition, and I was freed from all fears; I became possessed with the irresistible and bold desire to effect the reform of national education with as much haste as was humanly possible” (The World Tribune, Nov. 18, 2010, p.2 or www.tmakiguchi.org). Today, the Soka school system exists in quite a few countries and many educators around the world are studying Makiguchi's theory and implementing them in their teaching methods, thus enabling children to grow not merely into effective specialists in one thing, cogs in the wheel of a vast economic system that seems to dictate more to people than it does provide them with a true sense of meaning, fulfillment and happiness in life, and, instead, to contribute to significant and meaningful improvements in the lot of humanity.

In 1978, I first heard the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo when a fellow student at Bard College would bravely chant them in his dorm room every morning. I myself was inspired to take up this faith and practice in 1988 when I was told by an SGI member at an SGI discussion meeting that no prayer to the Gohonzon (the object Nichiren first inscribed containing personages from the Lotus Sutra representing the myriad phenomena of life with Nam-myoho-renge-kyo written down the center in bold lettering, which, when chanted with focus on it, enables one to tap into one's greatest inner potential for good, happiness and value creation in the world) goes unanswered and that there are no rules other than the one rule to embrace the Gohonzon and never to slander it (which I came to learn actually means never to slander life, one's own or that of others, by any form of disparagement). In the 22 years since then, I have encountered much hardship and struggle, but guess what—much growth. I have tapped into a self that I somehow always knew I had but never had an ounce of the courage needed to manifest it. My relationship with my parents, deeply strained for many years, has undergone light years of improvement. While some may attribute this to coincidence, I can unequivocally say that if this were a coincidence, then so is the fact that my stopping at a red light while there is traffic whizzing by and my survival to get through the intersection only after the light turns green would have to also be a coincidence.

But I think the greatest actual proof of how this practice, like the sun, outshines the earlier life philosophies mentioned, which are at best like bright stars and the moon, is my own observation of what I see when practitioners of this philosophy, the members of the SGI (Soka Gakkai International), today's organization which President Makiguchi founded with the publication of his book, The System of Value Creating Pedagogy in 1930, coming together. For it is then that I can appreciate the vast difference between the attitude, life condition and feeling of these people and places and those among people who live based on one or more of the earlier philosophies. For, whereas, mostly in the world today, there is a focus on who's to blame, in the SGI, the focus is on how can we all come together to solve the problem(s) and advance together. Whereas fear, factionalism and cliques prevail in society, in the SGI, people from backgrounds as diverse as you can imagine, come together and put aside their differences. All the assumptions and stereotypes I had grown up hearing about particular groups of people, are completely refuted not merely in words but in the behavior of people from those groups of people when they participate in SGI meetings. People like myself who never smile, actually leave meetings beaming.

What is irrefutable as proof and utterly striking is the degree to which SGI members, without pause, break or discouragement when initial efforts fail, continue to go out of their way to encourage other people, to comfort them, to work tirelessly for their happiness. For years, I couldn't believe myself and challenged this behavior in SGI members as fake. It just seemed to good to be true. But gradually, as chanting softened the hard inner wall I had put up to protect myself from what seemed like a very cold, or at best, untrustworthy world I lived in, I came to understand that these oases of peace and joy that beam at SGI meetings, community and culture centers are far from fake. After attending a 4-day conference at the SGI Florida Nature and Culture Center, I was impressed that world peace is indeed very possible if such a wonderful experience could be created. And it wasn't merely the place but what the coming together of all those people in that one place devoted to actively making peace happen that convinced me that all the things most people have written off as utterly impossible, a vain pipe dream, are very real so long as we are willing to make it happen. But the key ingredient is me. You. I'll go into this next time.

The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 5

Day 5: On the Hanukkah menorah, there are two sets of 4 rows of candles flanking the shamash, the master candle that sits above these two rows, in the center. It does not sit on one end to symbolize a progression from lowest to highest, but sits, rather, in the center, symbolizing the uniting of two flanks, not simply sitting above the rest but acting only to guide them to shine their own lights. Hence, it is a symbol for democracy, in which individual rights and the greater, common purpose are harmonized. On day 5, Jews who celebrate Hanukkah, light the first candle on the other side of the shammas, having completed the first row and now moving on to the second. We, in this discussion, have proceeded quite differently, my point being to see the commonality of each of the branches on either side. In the traditional 6-branched candelabra which is one of the many symbols of Judaism, each of the 3 candle holders on both sides is connected with its corresponding one on the other side. The Hanukkah menorah, with 8 branches, is sometimes constructed this way. This is the image I had for my 10-fold comparison. So, in effect, we've lit all the other candles and now it's time to focus on the shamash itself, the candle which is used to light all the other candles.

Nichiren Daishonin speaks of the three kinds of proof necessary for any teaching or belief system to prove its validity. These are documentary proof, theoretical proof and actual proof. Documentary proof refers to a statement's validity in light of a commonly accepted document of authority. In Nichiren's case, he was referring to the Buddhist texts as a means of proving or disproving any Buddhist school's teaching and practice as being a teaching and practice that accords with the text of the sutras. Obviously, that does not hold in the west since almost no one regards Buddhist texts as the authoritative text upon which to base one's truth or truths. We would want to use a text that most people hold in authority, such as the Bible, which is one of the reasons I have gone through great pains to shed light on the relationship of Buddhism to Judeo-Christian teachings. Of course, in today's world, many people do not accept the Bible so it's function as a source of documentary proof is now very limited. In the United States, the text of the Constitution is used as documentary proof to judge any law passed by Congress or action taken by the executive branch. But obviously, for our purposes, we would need something else. Perhaps, if there is one thing secular humanism has eliminated is the validity in the modern world of any form of documentary proof. Nonetheless, it still has a limited value because limited numbers of people hold certain texts to be sacred or at least greatly revere the words in them. Great writers like Shakespeare are often held up in conversation to help prove or make a point. The second proof, theoretical proof, refers to whether something makes sense or not. Of course, “sense” is very relative. What makes sense to me may not make sense to you. Nonetheless, because we all have to survive together and moreover because we actually need each other to survive, we have evolved and must conform to certain commonly accepted perspectives on life and on the universe. Not that these can't be challenged. Obviously, postulating that the earth is round went against the grain of common sense at the time it was first postulated, but it, as we know, turned out to be of much greater use to all of us to change that accepted notion of common sense, and now, today, there is no one in the world who still believes what everyone believed in 1400, that the earth is flat and has edges. Hence, even theoretical proof cannot be completely relied on because it too has flaws and limitations.

The third criteria of proof, actual proof, is the only solid basis for establishing the validity of any teaching or thought system. And believe me, I have speculated, based on Plato's dualistic allegory of the cave, that everything we perceive is really untrue, especially in that it has formed the basis of most of western thought right on up to the present day. Yes, it is true that our senses can lie or deceive us. But what else have we? Otherwise, the universe would be entirely random and nothing would be reliable or authoritative. However, that cannot be but sheer nonsense since everyday we live based on beliefs either proven by what we have perceived with our senses or, more often than not, based on faith in what others have told us. We have to rely on both perception and faith in order to survive. And we do. Otherwise, we'd live totally outside pattern and totally random, with no assurance that we'd even make it through the next minute. Maybe if I drive through that red light with traffic whizzing across my path, I'll make it. How many of you really believe the law of perpendicular collision of two moving objects is not reliable? I didn't think so. Hence, we use the best of what we have and it works! By golly!

So now that we've agreed that actual proof is a good criterion for judging the validity or truth of something, let's now examine the four systems of thought we have talked about in the preceding chapters. We've already seen that while the human freedom of choice of Judeo-Christianity caused Adam and Eve a lot of suffering, it still protected them and gave them a much better outcome than the mythological determinism of ancient Greek thought gave Oedipus. We also saw that Christian mercy and latitude gave a starving man a happier ending to his Sabbath than strict, unwavering adherence to Jewish law did. And we saw that countries which translated the Bible into their vernacular and gave their people a direct relationship to God fared better than those which kept them ensconced in ritual and shrouded in mystery, relying on a clergy to be the intermediaries between them and God. We continued to examine history and saw that as people put man at the center of their activities that they enabled more people to become even happier and live better. Hence, we've already seen 4 examples of actual proof that certain systems worked better than others.

There are also great examples of human beings evolving toward better more compassionate ways of treating each other. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac on the altar, to show his faith. Nothing unusual about that. All the people of that land—and many other lands in ancient times—sacrificed their first-born in order to appease gods so they would give them a good harvest. After all, if the gods got angry and many people starved, that would make sense as a worse outcome. So killing one's first-born would be a way of sparing many others. But, all of a sudden, at the last minute, God orders Abraham to stop it, just as he's about to let the knife come down. God doesn't need Abraham to show that to prove his faith. Thus, human sacrifice is outlawed. Also, the great contribution of Christianity toward humanism in the west has been greatly underestimated. Two years ago, when the Olympics were about to happen, PBS had a program on the ancient Greek Olympics. It was far from the friendly competition we see today. The games were cutthroat, bloody and often to the death. The Roman practice of going to the Coliseum and watching people bludgeon each other to death was quite common. These things today and even 1,000 years ago are and were considered quite barbaric. The Christian spirit of love towards one fellow human beings, partially from Judaism and partially, as modern theological historians have discovered, derived from eastern ideas, including Buddhism, which had become quite prevalent in the now connected worlds of ancient Greece and India (thanks to Alexander the Great) after the very humane Buddhist-propelled rule of King Ashoka in the first century C.E. The impact of this spirit, as Christianity, unlike anything else, became prevalent in Europe, changed western civilization forever into one in which even today it is hard to transgress basic rules of consideration and respect for others so as at least not to inflict injury on them unless provoked. The impact of free commercial exchange that came out of the Reformation led to the growth of wealth for many people, thus making Protestantism a clear winner in the battle to show actual proof in terms of its ability to benefit many people, and the effect of the scientific revolution based on secular humanism led to advances so unfathomable in terms of anything that came before that more people than ever have been and are able to be free of hunger and poverty, there being food banks and shelters at the very least to take care of the less fortunate, who are still, in many ways a lot more fortunate than people used to live, who had to get up at 3 or 4 in the morning, often in extreme cold, without any heat, just to labor hard in order to survive. The benefit today of vaster literacy than ever that leads to more mobility and ability to be part of the network of commerce, as well, is a clear indication that secular humanism—which parallels the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra that Buddhahood is an ever-present reality in the lives of all people—is the biggest winner in showing which way of thinking displays the most actual proof of benefit both of individuals as well as of enabling society to live better.

But! What about the fact that there is still, despite the philosophical basis for absolute equality, still great disparities among people? Why, if man—humans are the center, the starting point of all endeavor, are so many of us being left out, living in poverty, in fear, unsatisfied even despite having all that one could desire? Why, even though at the push of a button or two, we can communicate with someone around the world or be in Beijing within 24 hours, are people still killing both themselves and others? What is missing?

The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 4

Day 4: In talking about the trends of human religious evolutionary consciousness, as I mentioned earlier, it is dangerous and oversimplifying to think of specific time periods in history as belonging completely to one mode of thinking versus another. As I already pointed out, some of the major religious evolutionary developments we are heirs to involve progressions of consciousness that we ourselves struggle with on a daily basis and that most of us have thought patterns belonging to each of the 5 different modes of thinking identified in Nichiren's and my comparisons. It is necessary to say this now because in examining the period of the Renaissance, which we started to get into last week up to the time we're currently living in, the ability to identify clear trends of a particular period is not that easy. Notable achievements of the Renaissance, from Galileo's and Copernicus' identification of astronomy in a way challenging orthodoxy to Shakespeare's deep understanding of human beings and his ability to get inside the heads of everyone from pagans to Jews to Christians to skeptics—in fact, to see the unique ways each person thought—in many ways define the next trend in human consciousness that will be identified today.

In terms of Nichiren's 4th Buddhist comparison, he identified it as the difference between the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra and the essential teaching. The Living Buddhism article from the Nov-Dec 2010 article on page 96 talks about two big differences, (1) the difference between merely possessing the Buddha nature and actually being able to manifest it, and (2) the difference between cause and effect time-gap and cause and effect simultaneity. Nichiren identifies the first half, the first 14 chapters of the Lotus Sutra, as the theoretical teaching in which the fact that all people have the Buddha nature, is elucidated, and the second 14 chapters as the essential teaching, in which, in the 16th, Life Span chapter, Shakyamuni reveals that whereas everyone understood him to have attained enlightenment when in a deep meditation at the age of 30, in actuality, he had really attained his enlightenment eons ago and the many lives he had previously lived as an unenlightened person, as he had told his disciples about throughout his teachings as parables, were actually lives he had lived while already a Buddha. The significance of this is that Buddhahood is not something separate from ordinary life. We don't become a Buddha through Buddhist practice, nor, as the theoretical teaching maintains, do we manifest the Buddhahood we already have as something apart from an unenlightened state, and then enter nirvana, never to return to this world again. Rather, the real implication and significance of this Life Span chapter is that we are always both a Buddha and an ordinary person. Remember how I told you in the last segment not to become attached to labels and titles? Well now more than ever is when you're going to need that understanding. All of a sudden, in saying this, everything was turned on its head. No wonder, as Nichiren lamented, no one in the Buddhist world got it right. No wonder they had lapsed into worshiping statues of images of Buddhas hoping to attain salvation that way.

I thought long and hard about how I would categorize and name the corresponding western development to the Essential Teaching of the Lotus Sutra's Life Span chapter, and clearly the term, “secular humanism” won the day in my mind. The word secular can be misleading, however, because this does not mean atheism necessarily, although I would probably place the more orthodox observants of Christianity among Protestant denominations, including today's popular Evangelical movement, more closely with the 3rd group which corresponds to the Theoretical Teaching of the Lotus Sutra, but there are definitely developments in the Christian world that challenge the dualism of orthodox Christian thinking enough to be considered in this 4th group, the secular humanists. These range from many of the leading thinkers of the Renaissance, such as Montaigne, to pull a name out of a hat, who were Christians, to England's Queen Elizabeth who, ahead of her time, and probably due to the intense religious persecution she experienced, almost being put to death more than once, established the first English kingdom where freedom of religion prevailed (though, unfortunately such freedom was short-lived), to Shakespeare, who I already mentioned, and of course many people today, both Christian and non-Christian, both religious and non-religious fall into this category. I think what clearly defines it, keeping in mind how the Life Span chapter turns everything on its head by getting rid of the distinction between Buddha and non-Buddha, establishing that Buddhist practice exists within regular society, not just in religious practices alone, is the coming together of God and man, or humans, as one and the same. Pantheism is a great example, the teaching that God is in everything. The spirit of America's founders clearly is in this group, and of course, the many who reject religion altogether, are clear examples of this. What unites them all is their belief that humans are central to everything. Of course, scientific endeavor is central, the seeking out of the truth through observation, reason and experiment. I really should have started talking about science in the last installment because embedded in the thinking of the Reformation was also the understanding that God's works and truth are communicated through everything, not just through religious texts. However, perhaps, this installment is the better time to speak about science because the big achievement of the Protestant movement was making God's word more accessible, i.e. making the Bible's very word more accessible. However, the beginnings of seeing the natural world as not divorced from the supernatural or metaphysical world was also a feature of the Protestants and it is not surprising that the economies of these countries in northern Europe took off while those of Catholic southern Europe did not to the same degree.

But what separates the aspect of the scientific movement that goes with part 4 from that which goes with part 3 at the time of the scientific revolution (in which scientific thinkers were not challenging the words of the Bible) is that these were and are willing to take up inquiry and discovery that may challenge the understanding of the Bible and to challenge it. Hence, while the Reformation afforded one the ability to understand and know God on a personal level through direct contact with His word, the scientific revolution enabled people to explore their world with no holds barred, even if it meant, or means, coming up with a completely different truth. Hence, this opened up a mode of understanding, that is only today becoming more accepted and common, that of pluralism and relativism. Contact with other cultures in the world in the last 200 years has speeded up the breakdown of absolute “truths” as we discover an amazing variety of them. In fact, my article, as well as the work of Joseph Campbell, has been to discover the common elements in seemingly uncommon and belief systems, even that seem to contradict each other but may not do so as much as we think.

To conclude this comparison, we have seen the increase of human freedom progressively and the current development, both in terms of Buddhism and in terms of western thinking, effectively closes both the temporal and the spatial gap between what is seen as the great and the ordinary, the highest and the lowest, as one is both instantly a Buddha and there is no God outside of man himself.

The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 3

Day 3: One thing I really love about Buddhism, particularly Nichiren Buddhism—and of life itself—is the concept of the Middle Way, the recognition that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to our linguistic and mental capacities is our need to define and dualistically contrast things in order to understand them clearly with our mind. But as the Buddha warns Shariputra in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's ultimate teaching, which we will be discussing in this section, “Go chi-e mon. Nange nannyu. Issai shomon. Hyaku-shi-butsu. Sho-i sha ga.” (The Liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism, p. 1), which means, “The door to this wisdom [the Buddha's wisdom] is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it.” (ibid. p. 20) The voice-hearers and pratyekabuddha were the Buddha's disciples from his earliest teaching period, the period we described in the last session as Hinayana, lesser vehicle teachings. Hence, because they were able to practice these very difficult teachings, they were considered the Buddha's foremost disciples. Shariputra, in particular, to whom this passage is addressed, was considered the smartest, the most intelligent of the Buddha's disciples. He was the equivalent of, in modern terms, a philosopher/theologian/rationalist of the highest degree, someone who could do the most complicated mental operations, concentrate well and commit all of the many teachings he learned to memory. Yet, in this passage, he is told he cannot begin to understand (i.e. enter the door) to the greatest wisdom in life. I believe this is so because even though one may master logic and mental calibration, life transcends and does not follow these mental calibrations and methods that we humans have constructed to understand the truth. For example, we say a thing is good or bad, large or small, round or square. Or we give names to everything. But none of these effectively secure for us the knowledge that makes us ultimately free or happy. And while there is a correct and incorrect method for evaluating and defining things to enable us to live together and with ourselves with clarity, when it comes especially to the deepest and most significant matters, such constructs completely fail us. Hence, we commit ourselves to war. And then we commit ourselves to peace. To love. And then to independence. We eventually learn—if we keep an open mind—that none of these things has an absolute value. For example, what if you are forced into a situation in which the absolutely only way to save one life is to destroy another? Although this justification has been used quite liberally in getting people to go to war, it sometimes holds. The point is that you are asking for big trouble if you cling hard to absolute definitions about life.

Thus, we saw in the last installment the idea of devoting oneself to the happiness of others. But unless clearly defined as needing to be coupled with devoting oneself to one's own happiness, all kinds of problems are sure to easily arise, the most obvious of them being the fact that we cannot take good care of others if we are a mess and falling apart and also that it is easy to be duped by unscrupulous people into supporting evil in the guise of helping someone. A pernicious and dangerous example is when an entire large religious institution takes advantage of such sincerity and good-heartedness. The Living Buddhism I have been quoting from defines the 3rd comparison as that between “True Mahayana and Provisional Mahayana” (LB Nov-Dec 2010, p. 96). True Mahayana is the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni's ultimate (although not final) sutra (the Nirvana, which confirms what was taught in the Lotus, being the last), in which he declares unequivocally with respect to every sutra preceding, “I have not yet revealed the truth” (L.S. Chap. 2). The major point and huge significance of the Lotus Sutra is its revelation, unique among all the sutras, that all people possess the Buddha nature, meaning they have the potential for ultimate enlightenment. “The pre-Lotus...teachings...insist that [certain] people, which include] evil people and women...are...incapable of becoming enlightened...On the other hand, the Lotus Sutra...elucidates how everyone...can equally attain Buddhahood.” It explains that while Shariputra, considered foremost in wisdom, was unable to attain Buddhahood through his wisdom, he could nonetheless attain Buddhahood through faith in the sutra, just as anyone else could. Hence, the Lotus is a great equalizer, or, better put, revealer of the inherent equality which is the true nature of all human beings, because all it requires is faith in it, rather than austere and very difficult practices, including the provisional Mahayana perogative to love all people unconditionally. Or better put, faith in the sutra itself, will arouse the Buddha wisdom and compassion that makes us naturally love others, without trying to force it. The ability of all people, equally, to attain this wisdom is what safeguards our being taken advantage of by people claiming to possess religious authority simply because they are in a high position within the religion one believes in.

What is the watershed event/phenomenon in western culture that parallels this opening of the highest spiritual wisdom to all? In 1517, a very brave Christian priest named Martin Luther publicly stated that no priest nor the Pope has any greater authority in Christian faith or understanding than anyone with sincere faith. Around this same time, the printing press had been invented and soon the actual text of the Bible would be available to more people—in their own language, instead of Latin—than ever before. In my last installment, I had spoken about the doing away with ritual and precepts or commandments which were central to Judaism and Hinayana Buddhism when Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism offered a way that was more accessible to so many more people. What happened to these movements that they somehow became ensconced with the very stumbling blocks and shackles they themselves had once overthrown by the Latter Day, during which time Nichiren and Martin Luther made their appearances? Nichiren, in discussing the limitations of the Buddhist temples of his day, clearly and easily identifies the limitations of the pre-Lotus Sutra Mahayana teachings upon which they are based, which do not teach that all people are capable of enlightenment, thus fostering a climate of inequality. In the case of the Christian Church that existed in the Middle Ages and at the time of Luther, I have always been suspicious of the movement of Christianity from the time the Romans took it over from the common people. I have been suspicious of the Roman Church, or, as it is better known, the Roman Catholic Church, as really the last ditch attempt of the Roman emperors to seize control of what, on its own merit, had become the most popular way of life in the empire, and thereby maintain control over the people. The huge weight given to papal authority clearly attests to my argument that the Roman Church, rather than a religious institution, is more of a political one. However, in that the last two popes, beginning with Pope John Paul II, have been so sincere in their efforts to respond to the challenges of the modern world, especially in meeting equally with Jews and Moslems with open arms and an intent to come together, as well as John Paul's brave opposition to the Iraq war, I want to lend my strong support for this expression of a truly Christian spirit.

Nonetheless, historically, an exciting movement was on foot in Europe during this period during the middle of the second millennium, not only in terms of Luther, but also in terms of many other luminaries of the period known as the Renaissance, a period in which not only religious authority buyt political authority underwent much upheaval as things became more democratic. The invention of the printing press not only opened up the words of the Bible to large number of people but also the words of many other people, thus bringing learning to more people than ever. And, although this upheaval involved huge amounts of violence, it is still hugely exciting to think that one's relation to wisdom, to truth, to God, was no longer to be dictated either by a rule book that one had to blindly obey nor by a religious authority who could at will decide for you what God's word was, but only through faith alone. This empowerment of people is something scholars and historians of many belief systems celebrate as they examine this period historically known as the period of the Reformation as well as the Renaissance.