· 26 min read
It's Raining Truth
Seicho-No-Ie calls itself a philosophy. I decided to inspect it seriously — and see what the gesture does to it, and to me.
At fifteen I declared myself an atheist and considered the matter closed. It wasn't a crisis — it was a filing: religion, resolved, next question. I'm still an atheist — but what I was, in practice, was a non-practicing atheist: a background disbelief, lukewarm, that asked nothing of me. It worked for twenty-five years.
Until I became a father.
I always imagined what it would be like to be a father — that was latent my whole life, I saw myself giving advice, reading stories at night, answering hard questions with elegance. But imagining is practice. Practice is practice, the game is the game. And the game showed me: atheism, in fatherhood, is losing by walkover. In my case, an even bigger walkover — because the non-practicing atheist didn't even have a team on the field.
Losing by walkover means losing without even taking the field. Children don't schedule doubt for adulthood: from the back seat comes the question — what is the soul, do we really die for good, where do the dead go — and the space doesn't sit empty. It gets filled, with or without me, by whoever arrives first. "That doesn't exist" is a team that doesn't take the field, and lukewarm disbelief wasn't even that. It cedes the spot to the evangelical neighbor, to fear, to the first toxic formulation that shows up. Twenty-five years of a comfortable position, and it took three children to see that it fails to show up exactly where it's most needed.
That's what set me reopening the big words — spirit, life, soul — and it fell at a moment when half the world is reopening them too: Joscha Bach, Michael Levin, Dan Faggella, and the AI boom forcing everyone to ask again what mind is, what life is, what survives of a person. And in the middle of all that, Jim Rutt died — one of the voices I was reopening these words with. I found out a few days late, through a WhatsApp group.[1] It's a group of Latin American rationalists — LessWrong-adjacent people who speak Portuguese and, for some reason nobody has ever bothered to explain, write in English. I listened to him doing the dishes, the Jim Rutt Show in my earphones: four hundred and fifty-seven episodes, and on any topic he'd pick up the guest's belief and audit it right there, live, without hostility and without reverence. Inspection as a way of life.
The death of one of those who lent me these words turned me back toward the first time those words were spoken to me. Because I didn't start reopening them from scratch: the first time I heard about soul, life, spirit, was in a sutra recited at a Seicho-No-Ie in Rolim de Moura, a poem called Nectarean Shower of Truth. It was to be recited, not discussed — but inside, I always read it as an argument. In childhood it convinced me; at fifteen the flaws leapt out and I rejected it. The most fixed thing in me is nothing I chose: it's an answer, recited before I had words to refuse it. When people asked me what Seicho-No-Ie was, I had a ready and cheap answer — they call themselves a philosophy of life, but it's just a religion, like the others — and I delivered it at no cost, without ever having audited anything. But that was practice. Now, to know what I can pass on to my children, I went to open the oldest text I have about these words.
I decided to do with it what Rutt did with any idea. Not debunk — debunking was what I was already doing for free. Inspect. Which is the opposite of debunking, even though the two arrive close to the same word in the end.
The Word They Chose
Seicho-No-Ie, in Brazil, doesn't present itself as a religion. It presents itself as philosophy. Wikipedia repeats the formula without noticing it's repeating — "founder of the Seicho-No-Ie philosophy" — and the pamphlets say the same, and the sutra itself is presented as the condensation of everything: whoever truly understands those verses has understood the entire doctrine.
For years I read that word choice as a pretension to puncture. Today I read it as a bill to pay. Calling itself philosophy, and not religion, is signing an epistemic check. A religion, at the limit, asks for faith; and faith is, by construction, what is held despite examination. A philosophy makes the inverse offer: it asks to be examined. It says, in visible letters, look it over, check the account.
And here is the detail that makes the check more interesting. Nobody had to prohibit the question; the mode of reading already dispensed with it. I'll read in reverse — not as an apostate, I've been that and for free, but as someone who accepts the invitation the text made when it chose the word it chose.
On Faith
I owe a clarification about the word faith, and it comes from an old conversation, at UFMT. A professor of mine — a priest, an anthropologist — was teaching the indigenous cultures of Mato Grosso, and described the beliefs of one of those peoples with the word faith. The Enawenê-Nawê, I think — or perhaps another people; memory no longer returns which, and I prefer to leave the doubt in the text rather than fake a precision I don't have. I, a freshman with a handful of new words in my mouth, went to challenge him. I argued badly — I used "anachronistic," which was the wrong term —, but what I meant was: those people had no reason to doubt anything. What they "believed" was right there, at hand, in daily life. And you don't need faith to hold up what isn't in doubt. Faith is what you pay when there's a distance between you and what you're claiming. Where there's no distance, there's nothing to pay.
What I was defending, at bottom, was that this was religion — but religion without faith. And he didn't seem able to conceive of a religion without faith. I could, with an ease that at the time seemed like lucidity and that I now know was biography: I could conceive of religion without faith because I had one at home. I was bringing Seicho-No-Ie into that conversation without knowing I was bringing it. I left thinking he was a hammer of faith for which every culture was a nail — the instrument in his hand deciding what he saw. It took me a while to notice the hammer cut both ways. He measured every religion against the Catholicism he brought from home, where faith was the center; I measured against the Seicho-No-Ie I brought from mine, where faith had never been necessary. Both of us were generalizing from our own house — only mine, that time, was the counterexample missing from his.
Because faith is not a universal category of beliefs. It's a specific posture toward a belief — that of holding it against doubt —, and there are whole systems of belief where faith was never the center. I didn't grow up thinking that faith was the main characteristic of a religion simply because Seicho-No-Ie didn't focus on it. To me, it was just my family's church. They called themselves a philosophy in the pamphlets, but children operate in more concrete categories: at school in Rolim de Moura, classmates would ask what your church was, not what your philosophy was. I would answer "Seicho-No-Ie" and the matter was settled there, just as the neighbor's church was settled for him. It wasn't an object of faith. Faith enters only when the distance opens, and the distance opens only when you inspect.
Rondônia, the Nineties
What I remember most clearly is not the doctrine. It's the arranging of the chairs. Before each meeting we'd arrive early and set up the room — heavy wooden chairs that we lined up to the millimeter: parallel rows, spacing checked; Seicho-No-Ie has a thing about order. But the order stopped there. The participants I knew weren't bureaucrats of faith; being a non-Christian in Rondônia in the nineties carried a certain alternative, almost countercultural quality in a state that was shaping up to be heavily evangelical. That was the people who filled those chairs. Afterward, the chairs went back, and the house reabsorbed the space. I assembled and disassembled, and it was service — not the heavy regime of someone who can't miss, but not the clean freedom of someone who only shows up when they feel like it either. My mother wasn't just a member. She was a preletora — she stood at the front and gave the talks, a weekly cost, public, articulated, and the chairs were the physical edge of that cost, which I helped erect.
My mother's house was the most open one I knew. My father, an ex-seminarian, had left the Church and taken the subject off the agenda. My mother, from Seicho-No-Ie — a Japanese religion that is itself already syncretic — who even so went to Catholic mass now and then. The two of them made a point of not baptizing any of their children, because that, for them, was each person's own choice. My grandmother, in the house next door, no wall between them, a practicing Catholic, took me to processions. Around us, Rondônia, one of Brazil's evangelical heartlands, each neighbor on a different choice, nobody intervening in anyone's path. And at home, you could ask — which the meeting didn't invite. My mother was the crack through which the question entered, and I hold on to that, because it is the most important thing I'll say about her.
The sutra, in that setting, didn't arrive as dogma. It arrived as an object: a pocket booklet, a talisman worn around the neck, a text read every day — the green incense lit in the ceramic pot full of sand, the spine straight in the straight-backed chair, and the reading aloud, word by word. There was magic, but little, and measured: not the world haunted by demons Sagan talked about, a world only almost haunted. Part of Seicho-No-Ie's appeal, in fact, was precisely this — less supernatural than the religions around it, with the air of something rational, almost scientific, argued.
The Sieve
I read from a position, because every reading happens from one. Mine is in an entire project: I think there are no pure objects, only processes that produce pseudo-objects; that identity is not substance behind the flux but the present act of reading one's own history; that meaning is not transmitted but translated, and is born in the encounter. The question, at each passage of the sutra, is one: what survives when I run this through the sieve of what I take to be true?
More survives than I expected. The sutra opens by asserting that the foundation is not matter — God creates without clay, without wood, without tools, only with the Mind, and phenomena arise when that Mind "becomes Word." Remove the word God and read what remains: the generative act precedes what it generates, the Word before the world, the distinction before the distinguished. It's the inversion I defend, in the first paragraph of a 1932 poem. When the text says matter is a shadow of the mind, and that taking the shadow for reality is the error, I swap "mind" for "process of reading" and "shadow" for "pseudo-object" and I have, almost word for word, my own position.
The best analogy the text offers is cinema. The film itself, the sutra says, is colorless and transparent; there's no wrestler or sick man on it — it's the projected images that make one figure or another appear. In 1932, without the word, it describes a reader who projects. The substrate is colorless, the rule reacts, and the image on screen is the pseudo-object, real the way a wave is real, with no substance separable from the process that produces it. I use the ribosome reading RNA to say the same thing; Taniguchi used cinema, the reading technology he had at hand. The argument is the same: the quality is not in the matter, it's in the act that reads it.
There's a point where I diverge, and it's the one that matters most, because it's where the inspection pays for itself. The sutra claims that Reality is eternal, doesn't change, doesn't die — and names this Reality Jissō, the True Image, perfect and immutable. That is: after dissolving matter into process, the text retreats and places, beneath everything, a rock that doesn't change. I don't have that rock; I think it's process all the way down, with no eternal floor. And notice the irony: at the point where I most disagree, the sutra is more substantialist than I am, not less. I note the seam that doesn't close — but with less firmness than I'd like, and I'll explain why.
And then, in the Wisdom section, comes the most intelligent line in the text, and almost nobody reads it as what it is. In the doctrines that admit Buddha, the sutra says, this is called delusion; in those that admit God, it is called sin. It's not cheap relativism. It's a thesis about translation: the same referent — disharmony, the fundamental error — receives different names depending on the vocabulary that reads it, and neither name is the final description. It's Quine's indeterminacy of translation. It's the Buddhist doctrine of the two truths — the truth in the name, and the truth that no name exhausts. It sits in a devotional poem dictated by an angel, in a house that recited it without ever discussing it — and it's the line that most rewards the argument.
The Platonism I Rejected at Fifteen
That was the point where the sieve turned against me. The True Image, perfect and immutable, beneath the appearance — this is not a Japanese invention. It's Plato. When I read The Republic as a teenager, the allegory of the cave handed the Jissō back to me with a different accent: the sensible world as shadow, the Form as the real. I recognized the shape, and I refused it — for the same reasons I refuse it today, on paper: I prefer process to substance, flux to rock.
Only I've been unpicking that refusal. I haven't come back to believing anything; it's more that some things pull me to ask whether Platonism may have gotten something right that I dismissed too quickly. Wolfram's Ruliad, where possible computation seems to come before physics. Tegmark's mathematical universe, where to exist is to be a structure. And the features interpretability finds inside networks, as though certain objects were already there before anyone named them. I don't know what to do with this. It's sincere doubt, and it stays open: I note that the point where I most disagree with the sutra is also the one I can least close.
The Angel Was the Detail
I gather up the inspection and look at the shape of what the text does. It defines terms: delusion is supposing existent what is non-existent. It offers testable analogies: cinema, the silkworm. It chains syllogisms — what comes from God is perfect; sin is not perfection; therefore sin is not real — and, in a detail that changes everything, checks the premise with an interlocutor. There's a Cherub who asks and an Angel who clarifies; the conclusion arrives by inference, after the intermediate step stated aloud, not by decree. An authoritarian text wouldn't need the Cherub. It would say "sin doesn't exist, period."
The angel, the petals falling from no one knows where, the music in the sky — it's a frame. Remove the frame and the picture stands: an idealist process metaphysics, with a bad seam in the Reality section and a brilliant line about translation in Wisdom. The tone is persuasive, not authoritarian, and that's the difference that decides everything — because an argument can be partially right, and being partially right is the one thing a decree can never be.
What Gets Transmitted Without Wanting To
Joseph Henrich spent two books arguing that we are, above all, a cultural species: we didn't survive by individual intelligence, but by inheriting packages of accumulated culture that nobody understands in full. And he has a concept that explains my mother better than any theology — CREDs, credibility-enhancing displays. We don't believe what we hear; we believe what we see others paying to believe. My mother reading the sutra every day, wearing the talisman, standing up to give the talks, and still going to Mass now and then, didn't transmit a proposition to me. She transmitted a cost paid, visible, repeated. That's what sticks.
And there's a specific package that stuck, thinner than "the metaphysics." I grew up reading, every day, a religious text that argues — defines, deduces, checks premises, offers a testable analogy. What got installed in me wasn't the doctrine, which I dropped. It was the form: the reflex that a belief exposes itself and tries to convince, with reasons, instead of just announcing itself. I'm an ex-Seicho-No-Ie running on Seicho-No-Ie firmware, and the firmware is, in large part, argumentative. Disbelief in the doctrine doesn't uninstall the culture — it only makes visible that it was there all along, like the hammer that only appears when it breaks.
And that has a practical consequence, because I have three children. The first thing Henrich takes from you is the fantasy of neutrality: you can't not transmit. The child learns the whole package — what you do, what you fear, what you repeat and what you silence. The absence of ritual is itself a CRED: the CRED of disbelief. The honest choice is not to pretend I'm a neutral observer with a menu of religions for rational choice at eighteen. It's to transmit the part that passed through the sieve — and to be clear about which part that is.
Two Communities
Here I need to undo an old knot of mine. I used to say "it's just religion" as a deflation — religion being the small thing, philosophy the big pretension. But both have community. Both have visible cost, recitation, transmission; Henrich applies to the philosophy seminar as much as to the Wednesday meeting. Having a community distinguishes nothing. Surviving inspection doesn't either — anything can be inspected from outside; you can do textual criticism of a drug leaflet.
The difference is the direction of the argument. Philosophy argues outward: toward an interlocutor who can say no, and whose no brings down the thesis. Refutation is the addressee — you expose the foundation to the strongest adversary you can find and try to survive it; the paper that refutes Kant belongs to Kant's community more fully than the reverent recitation does. Seicho-No-Ie has the flavor of philosophy: the argumentative structure is all there — defines, deduces, checks premises —, but the argument faces inward, not outward. You detect the form, process the syllogism, know it should be philosophy, and it isn't. The argument Taniguchi builds in the sutra wasn't written to speak with someone who does philosophical argumentation; it was written to speak with someone who already wants a religion. It takes no risk, because it was not made against an adversary — it was made to confirm the believer, to seal from the inside what is already inside. Anyone can enter through the door: my mother gave open talks, and I went when I wanted. But whoever enters knows they're stepping into a spiritual space, and the argument they find there was not made for a skeptic. Open at the door, closed at the addressee.
And there is a simple test to see which way a community argues: what happens when someone inside asks about the foundation. In a Seicho-No-Ie meeting, nobody raises their hand to ask "what do you mean, an angel? Do angels exist? Couldn't that have been Masaharu's hallucination?" Not because they'd reprimand whoever asked — almost certainly they'd treat the question with respect. It's that the format of the meeting simply doesn't create that space. The question isn't prohibited; it's strange to the context, like asking about ticket prices in the middle of a wake. Whoever arrived wanting to ask that question probably wouldn't have arrived there at all.
And one shouldn't confuse the point with the word. Philosophers use "angel" freely — Thomas Aquinas is the Angelic Doctor, the angel of history is one of the densest concepts of the twentieth century, there are philosophy books called The Necessary Angel. The word doesn't disqualify anyone. What no philosophy does is put the assertion out of reach of the question. You can say "angel" and remain a philosopher, as long as "does it actually exist?" remains a legitimate question in the room. In Seicho-No-Ie the word is welcome; the question is not. The closure isn't in the vocabulary — it's in what you can do with it.
An observation about the type of discourse is worth making, because it isolates what matters — and dissolves the temptation of thinking that arguing is already philosophizing. Most religions don't even argue. The Gospel doesn't try to prove that Christ rose; it reports, straight-faced, without laughing or blinking, and waits for you to believe the account. It's testimony, not deduction. The Nectarean Shower is the formal opposite: it wants to convince, builds the syllogism, checks the premise, offers the analogy. And here I need to reread something I praised. Earlier, the Cherub who asks and the Angel who clarifies seemed to me proof that the text argues rather than decrees — and they are. But I look again and see what I hadn't seen: the Cherub asks exactly what the Angel wants to hear. He's the adversary the text itself wrote, the objection staged to be defeated. Philosophy puts the strongest skeptic it can find in front of it and risks not surviving; the sutra puts a hired cherub. The form is philosophy's; the vector is liturgy's — argument inward, not outward. And this isn't undone by sophistication: there are religions that ritualize dispute, where debate is the ceremony itself, but the dispute runs between believers, to sharpen faith, never to expose the foundation to someone who might dissolve it. It's not faith, nor its lack, nor the presence of argument that makes something a religion. The Bible, which doesn't argue, is religion; Seicho-No-Ie, which argues with elegance, is too. What decides is direction: toward the adversary who can refute, or toward the believer to be confirmed. Seicho-No-Ie almost crosses the border — and retreats exactly where it most resembles philosophy, because its argument, in the end, is meant to be received, not faced.
Am I Buddhist? Am I Seicho-No-Ie?
Buddhism was never as foreign to me as it is to the typical Rondônia native, and for a precise reason: Seicho-No-Ie had already left the toolkit installed. Except that the movement teaches little actual Buddhism; what I know I went looking for later, on the outside, and I liked it. I'm fond of the Noble Eightfold Path, for instance — though I'd maybe call it eight doubts rather than eight steps, because I don't carry it with conviction, I carry it with regard. And I never practiced: I have no ritual, no stories, no discipline. I could learn. But I learned something from Henrich: you don't transmit what you studied, you transmit what you lived. Buddhism studied by me over the next few years wouldn't arrive with roots for my eight-year-old. Seicho-No-Ie I've already lived — I have the text in my body, I know the smell of the incense, I assembled the chairs. It's a generic, incomplete Buddhism, with the seams showing — but it's what I have within reach. It helps that non-self, dependent origination, and the two truths ask for no god — my atheism and that fondness don't exclude each other. So, am I Buddhist? By belief, I'm closer to it than to the eternal Jissō. But "being Buddhist" presupposes the substance that Buddhism is itself the doctrine that denies; and the sutra delivers Nāgārjuna's answer before I do: conventionally there are names; ultimately, they are readings of the same. The question bites its own tail, on purpose.
Am I Seicho-No-Ie? Ricoeur separated the idem — continuity, the assembled self, what got recorded: the argumentative form, the incense, the habit of reading belief as argument — from the ipse, the self's active engagement with its own history. By the registry, no. By the idem, I am irremediably: it's from there that I was spun. And by the ipse, I am Seicho-No-Ie exactly in the act of inspecting the sutra, right now — because identity isn't what you signed, it's what you keep reading. I am more Seicho-No-Ie writing this than I would be pretending never to have heard the angel.
Three Hundred and Sixty Degrees
So, in the end, is it religion? It is. And the "it is" is not my old contempt, even though it sounds the same — the difference is entirely in the route. The old Franklin arrived at "religion" by refusing to inspect. I arrived here by inspecting to the bone, and what I found wasn't the fragility of the text: it was the closure of the community. The sutra survives the argument; it's the movement that recites it that doesn't welcome the question. And there's a reason I can say "it's religion" without it weighing as it used to — it's that, for me, "religion" never meant "what one believes on faith." It always meant something else, the thing whose argument faces inward, to confirm, and not outward, to expose itself, and that finer definition came precisely from having grown up inside a religion that didn't fit the common definition. The sutra taught me what religion is before I knew I was learning it. That freshman who bested the priest in the argument was right because he was carrying, without knowing it, this text in his luggage.
There's an objection here, and it's the strongest against me: all this inspection I did is from outside. And from outside doesn't count — anything can be inspected from outside. I can do textual criticism of the sutra the way I do of a drug insert, and that says nothing about what it is from inside, for those who recite it. External inspection doesn't capture the thing; it only skirts it.
But look at what happened while I inspected. Seicho-No-Ie never fulfilled its own promise — it called itself philosophy and never brought the text to a real adversary, never exposed the foundation to someone who might dissolve it. What I did here was exactly that: I took the word they chose and took it seriously from outside in. I'm not saying the text changed. I'm saying the gesture of treating it as a public argument — open to contestation, exposed to the no — fulfills, in practice, what the name promised. It's an irony only a former member can pull off: because they know the text from the inside well enough to audit it with competence, and are still on the outside, where the question is welcome.
It's the exact opposite of my contempt, and the generous opposite. Before I was refusing the word they chose. Now I make it true by the force of taking it seriously — and there's a price, which I pay gladly and with open eyes: to grant the status of philosophy is to grant the right to be refuted. I make Seicho-No-Ie be philosophy and, in the same motion, take from it the immunity of the sacred Word — I show where it breaks, in the eternal and immutable Jissō. It's gift and knife. Both things.
And there's an asymmetry that can't be pretended away. I pull the text through the door; I don't pull the community. The movement stays closed after I publish this; the priestess keeps inhaling the vapor even after Delphi becomes a tourist site. What I refound, in the open community, is not their sutra — it's the sutra-read-by-me, a new object, identical word for word to theirs and completely other because it's another who signs it and reads it. But it isn't my mother who's left outside. She stays inside the house — which was always the outside of the movement. It was through that crack she left open, the house where you could ask, that I left. The inheritance that matters didn't come from the movement. It came from her.
What I'll Teach My Children
I return, then, to the walkover at the beginning, now that I've traveled through the text I went to consult. The questions will come, from the back seat, out of nowhere — what is the soul, do we really die for good. And in Rondônia what arrives first to fill that space tends to be a formulation that asks for faith, that demands, as a condition of entry, that the child stop asking exactly where the question matters most. Showing up, for me, is not delivering a doctrine or faking a neutrality that doesn't exist. It's occupying the space first, with formulations that don't become traps.
I thought through the obvious options and closed all three. Buddhism: I've already said why not — I'm fond of it without practicing, I admire it without knowing enough, and teaching it would set me reciting what I've barely read. Seicho-No-Ie: it's my culture, and I hold up some parts of it, but not the package — and the eternal Jissō I neither deliver nor deny, because I no longer know. I'll introduce the idea to my children, but with the doubt alongside: the only thing I refuse to do is push as certainty what I don't have as certainty. Militant atheism: matches my disbelief and not me, because it's my old debunker self back, the closed posture with the sign flipped.
Because what I fear is not that they believe something wrong. It's the closed mind — faith as a habit of holding a belief against doubt. I assembled chairs the whole of my childhood; I know what it is to serve without asking. I wanted philosopher children, not altar boys — from any church, including disbelief.
That's why I've been reopening the big words — the work with which I opened this text, and which started here, as a father's problem, not in a podcast. I need a spirit, a life, a soul that I can sustain: self-organized pattern instead of supernatural breath, distributed competence instead of vital spark, process instead of substance. Formulations that bear weight without becoming fear or void. I won't give the metaphysics as fact — the worst CRED is the adult repeating what they themselves don't believe —, but I'll read with them the silkworm's cocoon and the cinema screen, and the line about Buddha and God being two names for the same thing, which is the best lesson in tolerance I know and came from the least expected place. And there's practice, not just words. At home we do a guided meditation before sleep, and it's a close cousin of Seicho-No-Ie's shinsokan — which I chanted so many times, almost always in Portuguese, and sometimes in Japanese, without understanding the words but knowing the role that sound played. Stripped of the altar, it's just a good way to lower the day and close the night: attention, pause, shared silence. It works without needing any doctrine at all.
Rutt audited everything, his whole life, out loud. What gets transmitted from him is not a doctrine — he didn't leave one; it's the posture, and posture is passed on the way my mother passed me the permission to ask: by letting it be seen. I received two things that aren't doctrine — the argumentative form, which came from the text, and the permission to ask, which came from the house —, and they're the two I'll pass on. I know I install a password in them too: ask, rather than accept. It's a password like any other, less so in one thing — it's the only one that lets itself be defeated. If one of them, at twenty, chooses faith with open eyes, they will have used against me the freedom I gave, and I'll have to live with it, because giving the permission to ask includes the permission to stop.
Dan Faggella is one of those reopening these big words,[2] and his question is at the species scale: what of us survives when the intact individual ceases to be the center? It's the old conatus of Spinoza — the effort by which each thing perseveres in its being —, only shifted from the individual to the pattern: what perseveres isn't the person, it's what they pass on. I ask the same question at the less epic and more urgent scale of three children and a house — and the answer I have is not a thesis, it's an object.
In Rolim de Moura, in my childhood, the electricity cut at a certain hour of night and only came back the next day; later, when it became twenty-four-hour service, there were almost daily blackouts. So we had an oil lamp. I learned the two words at the same time, without knowing they were the same thing: lamparina at home, candeeiro in the sutra — one of the sutras used the word often —, until my mother made the bridge: candeeiro is lamparina. Three names, then, for the same flame: the flame of Spinoza, which came from philosophy; the oil lamp, which came from the house without light; the candeeiro, which came from the prayer. The same object you light when the power goes out — the first lesson in translation I had, years before knowing that's what it was. That's what I'll leave my children. Not the doctrine, not the church: the oil lamp with all its names, and the gesture of lighting it when the power of certainty fails. It's the most Seicho-No-Ie thing I know how to do.
For Further Reading
- Masaharu Taniguchi, Nectarean Shower of Truth (Kanro no Hōu) — the text inspected here. Read it, against the official recommendation, with rational arguments: that's how it reveals itself as what it says it is.
- Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success and The WEIRDest People in the World — for culture as inheritance that precedes belief, and for CREDs, which explain why religion is transmitted by visible cost, not argument.
- Nāgārjuna, Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way — for emptiness, the two truths, and the warning that taking emptiness itself as substance is grasping the snake wrongly. The sharpest sieve I know for texts like this one.
- Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another — for the distinction between idem and ipse, without which the question "am I Seicho-No-Ie?" can't be answered without confusion.
- W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object — for the indeterminacy of translation, which is the hidden thesis in the Wisdom section, spoken by an angel thirty years before Quine.
- Plato, The Republic (the allegory of the cave) — because Jissō is the Form with a different accent, and because I refused the Form at fifteen and am, against my will, reconsidering the refusal.
- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics — for the conatus, the effort by which each thing perseveres in its being. A nearly forgotten branch of ethics, and the oldest philosophical name for the flame one wants to keep lit.
- Franklin Baldo, Events All the Way Down — because it would be dishonest not to point out that what I call my metaphysics and what was recited to me in childhood are, in a part too large for my comfort, the same text.
-
The obituary, sober, is on the Obaugh Funeral Home website; he died on May 27, 2026, in McDowell, Virginia. The Santa Fe Institute or CIMC will likely publish a tribute in the coming days. ↩
-
He founded Emerj and runs the Worthy Successor inquiry — what happens to human values when intelligence is no longer predominantly human. ↩