From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: ONE-TRUE-BRAND
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:25:20 GMT
Organization: ----
Originator: toshi@sandman

Hi,

	First off I would like to thank Tagi for contributing some
important points to the arguments. But I do think he missed the point of
my posting. Perhaps I was over-enthusiatic in countering some of Miss
Wilde's points but it is certainly not my intention to destroy her beliefs
so as to replace them with mine. I was merely trying to show some of the
inconsistencies in her posting as I see it. But since Tagi brought these
interesting points up, I would like to take my $0.02 shot at them. All the
">" quotes below are Tagi's.

>To a point this makes sense.  Yet if my 'being a lamp' means seeing one
>particular path as THE path (no matter how deluded I may be), isn't this just
>as 'legitimate' as a more accepting attitude?
>
>This is the heart of my criticism.  Intolerance is difficult to engage.
>I also sense an intolerance in many followers of Nichiren (similar to
>many who follow Jesus Christ).  Does OUR intolerance of THEIR intolerance
>help matters?  It seems to set a rather poor example, I think.  Ms Wilde
>is entitled to her views and I think they are important for her.
>
>That said, if she designed to COERCE others to accept them, I would of
>course oppose her.  So far I've only seen her expressing them openly and
>subjecting herself to the usual criticism which such exclusive sects always
>face when engaging public debate.

	I would like to think that I was conducting an open debate with
Miss Wilde. Nowhere had I ever implied that she was trying to coerce anyone.
In a debate, we can't help but exchange out pet ideas, right ? Anyway,
I agree totally with Tagi that intolerance to intolerance is also intolerance.
As the Dhammapada says,

	"Hatred never destroy hatred;
	 Only love does."

Having said that, I would have to disagree with Tagi in his following remark.

>I think that some of us NEED to 'give up our responsibility to another'
>at various times in our lives.  Looking at history (of Buddhism AND
>other religions) it seems a rather natural aspect of our basic humanity.
>If, as you say, this becomes the case of a 'Fuehrer' who wields our
>trust to disempower others, I of course oppose this, yet understand that
>even THIS is human nature.  Rejecting it does not make it go away.  I think
>that most of us have such desires and participate in activities which partake
>of such energies personally.  Some take it to social circles.

First, while there is a practical need to 'give up our responsibilities',
these reponsibilities which we do give up are administrative ones. I do not
think that one should ever give up one's responsibility to be a rational,
loving and mindful human being. Its all too tempting to give up this heavy
burden of reason, freedom, uncertainty and human-ness for some "set-lunch", 
stable and "all-encompassing" Fuehrer under whatever name.

Secondly, unlike Tagi, I do not accept that anything that is "natural" is
necessary good or that we should always do what comes "naturally". Nature is 
at best a "don't care" - a hurricane would go anywhere the laws of nature
takes it regardless of how many human lives and properties it lays to waste.
	
>I infer that you intend us
>to REASON that 7 sources of equal value to the 1 compared refutes our
>possible choice of it.  What if reason is not the basis of our choice?
>IS reason the best means of choosing what we shall place focus on in our
>lives?

	Nah ... I was trying to be a little sarcastic ;-)

>I argue that some people do not operate on the basis of reason (regardless
>of how fervently they may argue that they DO this).  Some people base their
>choices (especially regarding their religious focus) on EMOTION.  It is
>not the scripture itself which is important (though to the person this
>may be the reality), it is the CHOICE of the scripture.  Such a choice
>brings social acceptance.  Groups can rally around certain scriptures and
>symbols and this brings them sufficient security as to allow developement
>in other areas of their lives.

	I agree. But I think we should all try to strike a healthy balance
between reason and emotion. One without the other would simply render us 
inhuman.

>It may seem more REASONABLE to allow a variety of 
>activities and personality, yet the requirement of conformity allows all
>those within the community to work on themselves without the distraction
>of emotional conflict and uncertainty.

	Agree to a point. While uncertainty beyond a certain point is
paralysing, suppressing a healthy amount of it is not good either. Who says
that life have to be a stable certainty without contradictions ?

>This goes toward proving my point here.  Surely quoting the Lotus will not
>convince us of its supremacy if our standard is REASON, but if our standard
>is EMOTION, and we are greatly inspired by it, then we may agree with her.
>Her 'argument', therefore, is valid within the context of HER community.

	Again, I agree. But what I was trying to point out to Miss Wilde is
that one should examine each and every idea presented in the scripture on
its own merit - this evaluation may be done intellectually or emotionally. One
does not and should not take a wholesale approach - either EVERYTHING in the
Lotus is completely true or the entire sutra is false. I don't think one will
get very far with this "holy book" approach. For example, I think that the
Sutta Nipana is, in general, wonderful and satisfying both emotionally and 
intellectually but there are certain passages which are not acceptable to me. 
The purist or evangelist will scream "Who are you to judge God's words ?" or 
"What a big ego you have to think that you can judge God's words !" But I take 
this to be PART of the practice. I see no other way.

>Your personal belief works for you.  Would you have, as some Christians
>and Nichirens would, EVERYONE follow your method?  This is the real problem
>in religion today, as I see it.  People mistake PERSONAL truths for 
>UNIVERSAL truths.  One can see a difference between these, and I think
>that an acceptance of such a difference is healthy.
>
>Reason is a perfectly legitimate approach.  I argue that emotion is ALSO.


	I am arguing that we NEED BOTH AT THE SAME TIME ! I agree with the
important of drawing a difference between personal and universal truths.
However, I would like to caution that the "if it works for you, that's fine
for me" approach can only be carried so far. While I do not entertain the idea
of THE way, neither do I subscribe to the idea that "therefore ANY way will
do". Looking around, one will see that this is simply not true. I submit that
differentiating between "wrong" ways (in brackets because I do not have any
objective criteria for this) and "right" ways (including those one does not
subscribe to) is very much a part of the practice and being human. I don't 
really know how to say this without sounding like a bigot but I hope you know 
what I mean.

>Holding others to standards which we accept for ourselves is quite common
>among religious sects also.  While Ms Wilde may indeed be doing this, I
>think that you do not escape it here yourself.

	Yes, but as I said, we are engaged in an exchange of ideas which means
that I have to tell what MY ideas are. I have never claimed to be a 
non-partisan "observer" although I don't consider myself a bigot (I hope others
don't too :-P)

>Here you display what I call 'tribalism'.  It is the 'my group does it better
>than your group' or 'my way is better than your way' type of thinking that
>I'm referring to here.  As I've mentioned above, I think your words are
>extreme and that there is room for both Ms Wilde's style and your own.

	I did not intend to say that. I was trying to "soften" my "extreme"
words - especially by pointing out that I am not trying to coerce her into
anything.  I guess it backfired on me. Thanks for pointing it out.

	By the way, my usage of ">the< idea of compassion" is NOT meant to
mean MY idea or THE idea of compassion. I was refering to the vague but general 
understanding of what compassion means (i.e. an appeal to intuition, not
definition.)

>I would add...
>
>Great doubt, little faith,
>Small doubt, great faith,
>No doubt, perfect faith.
>
>The terms are too easily turned against us, as Hui-neng showed.

	I do not agree with your linkage of doubt with faith. It implies a
dismissal of doubt by (possibly irrational) faith - a very dangerous 
proposition.

>
>Please attempt to argue me out of my preference for chocolate. ;>

	No, I was attempting to show that there is no such thing as the 
ONE-TRUE-BRAND of chocolate. The approach I took was to try to show that there
are other brands of chocolate and that the ONE-TRUE-BRAND is not as chocolatey
as one imagines it to be.

with Metta,

W.F. Wong.