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?