Talk:Nichiren Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nichiren Buddhism article.
Article policies
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Nichiren Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Please place responses after the whole comment you are responding to. Thanks.

Contents

[edit] Early doubts about the article

Could someone sheds some lights on the reasons from both parties of the split between Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism and Sōka Gakkai International? Kt2

As I understand it, the conflict stems from deep philosophical differences in the two organizations' interpretations of the spirit and meaning of Shakyamuni's in the Lotus Sutra and of that of Nichiren in his writings. As evinced in both the Lotus Sutra, and in Nichiren's writings, they (Shakyamuni and Nichiren) each state clearly, firmly, uncompromisingly, and often, their position that enlightenment is the innate potential of every human being. They each insist that because of that innate equality among all people, there should be no distinctions between people - all are equal, all are equally capable of attaining Buddha hood, and therefore all are equally "worthy of respect." All are equal in their capacity to attain enlightenment. Period. SGI perceived the priesthood to be clinging to and/or advancing the position of itself as an intermediary, between the people and their ability to achieve enlightenment. This was considered to be in conflict with this essential teaching, and SGI members and SGI leadership questioned this assumption, citing both Nichiren and Shakyamuni. They were basically told "my way or the highway," and were "excommunicated" by the current High Priest Nikken Abe for questioning his reforms, in a confusing and painful break among the practitioners, who were then left to take sides. Among those who lived through the break, there seem still to be scars. Among those who have have come to the practice since then, there seems to be a somewhat different experience of SGI and the practice.People seem to make their choice based on which interpretation makes most sense and appeals to them individually.
Unfortunately, because it is difficult for people to break free from the traditional sort of mental archetype and ideal of a hierarchical religion, with a God at the top, a pope or other figurehead just below, then a priesthood, and finally, the regular Joe at the bottom looking ever up-wards, it seems that it is also difficult for them to conceive of and accept a religion -- philosophy, really -- that exists without such authorities and hierarchies at all. Rather, SGI is a unique institution in which experience and leadership do not constitute superiority. But with absolute equality comes absolute self-responsibility -- Nichiren Buddhism firmly lays the responsibility for ones enlightenment and happiness on the shoulders of the individual - his/her faith, his/her individual efforts and practice, his/her study and wisdom. Yet, it is that difference which makes all the difference. cite: www.sokaspirit.org, Confirming Our Path www.sgi.org --KPMP151.198.99.71 20:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The above statements about the essences of Nichiren Buddhism are which sects did what is a partial explanation; it is clear that it was composed respectfully by someone sympathetic to a particular sect, SGI. SGI has a powerful voice around and world and has historically represented Nichiren Buddhism to important world leaders who sought it's understanding. There are at least 2 other schools of Nichiren Buddhism: Nichiren Shu and Nichiren ShoShu. These sects warn of SGI (but do not prohibit) it's practice; many feel that SGI inherently contains certain personality-cult rituals, and too frequently worship President Ikeda (the current leader of SGI) along with Nichiren and Shakyamuni Buddha. Nichiren himself has said that he was not a Buddha, but an incarnation of Jogyo Bodhisattva. The path of the Lotus Sutra is the path of the Bodhisattva -- one who delays their own enlightenment until all other sentient beings in the universe have been saved from suffering. Schools like Nichiren Shu do not believe that the priest should not be worshiped, nor the president, only the Dharma, the Wonderful Flower of the Lotus Teaching. Several western nations have placed SGI on their respective "Cult watch" lists, and in extreme cases family members have written letters to their governments for assistance in getting their relative de-brainwashed. This is only in extreme cases with several exigent circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalchalk (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identical pages under two articles

We now have identical pages at Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism. Could the people working on these please decide which title is better and we'll make the other page a redirect? Thanks.

This is the result of an abusive edit. Nichiren Buddhism encompasses many schools, not just Nichiren Shoshu.

Well, Can we do something???? The last long version (can't judge its quality) was 5:19 nov. 1 2002.

kh7 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the concerns outlined above for both articles. When I have time, I will move some of the information in these two articles to the bibliographical one or a new one on Nichiren's writings. Jim_Lockhart 06:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] April 1253 ?

The mantra he expounded on 1253 April 28, Nam-Myōhō-Renge-Kyō, expresses his devotion to that body of teachings. .... If this is the fourth month in the lunar calendar, this is not the same as 'April'. What would be the correct Gregorian date ? Is this anniversary celebrated today in Japan ? If so, when ? -- PFHLai 03:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

It is the 28th day of the fourth month by the lunar calendar. I don't know when this would be according to any other calendar, and have never see it expressed anywhere. To my knowledge, there is a three to five week shift between Japanese lunar months and Gregorian months, so the actual date was probably in May or June. In my experience with Nichiren Shoshu temples, celebration of events in Nichiren's life usually take place according to the current Gregorian calendar. Priests have told me that the actual date is not so important—that it's the content (i.e., recalling the event and its significance) that's important to them. The only exception seems to be Taisekiji's celebration of O-eshiki (御会式), the celebration of Nichiren's 13 October 1282 passing. Although local temples hold the celebration on a weekend within about a month of 13 October, Taisekiji's celebration is held on the lunar-calendar anniversary.
If you think it would be appropriate to dig up the lunar-calendar date, I will research it. Jim_Lockhart 04:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(This conversation continues at User talk:JALockhart#From Talk:Nichiren Buddhism.


[edit] Article not about any specific group

Please do not delete or overwrite material in this article just because is does not fit the interpretation of your group (school, sect, etc.)! This article is not about any one group, nor is it intended to represent the views of any particular one. If you want to write about what your group—such as SGI, the one whose members seem to most frequently make changes to please themselves—does or does not do, then do it in articles about that group: This article already advises readers to look for group-specific information under the articles on their favorite groups. That should be enough! Jim_Lockhart 1 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)


I think part of the problem you may be having is that by the very act of writing an article that has confused and merged different beliefs and practices into one seeming whole, without clearly or fairly distinguishing between them, the author invites correction. Not to mention, at times, there is a decided sense of contempt and superiority in the author's attitude.
It is as if one were to try to convey the whole of Christianity by describing it, say, as "a religion steeped in ritual, its members having a a cult like attachment to a figure head called the Pope. Christianity and the Pope promote global domination by the forced conversion of entire nations to their religion, using coercian and force to do so, in a process called missionary work, also known as prostelitizing, and by having its members go door to door with its religious magazine. The magazine, the Watchtower, is generally considered Christian propoganda used to try to break people of their beliefs and convince them of the truth of Christianity" In this statement, one would be guilty of combining various forms of Christianity, elements of which are strictly Catholic, other elements that may be more closely attributed to say Protestant, Presbyterian, or Jehovah's Witness -- and through it all runs a grand "near truth", but it is unfair, lacking in context, and utterly superior and a contemptuous judgement on the whole. This kind of thing has no place in an encyclopedia of any kind. Ruby --151.198.99.71 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


You're entitled to your opinion, but I do not see where this article was "mixing" anything without mentioning distinctions, so the comparison given above is untenable. I think part of my problem is people changing everything they don't like in the articles, often replacing fact with fiction in the process. Given the sources they cite and the information they present, it is not difficult to imagine why they are doing what they are doing. It is also impossible to prove any relationships or to disprove much of what they write, but that doesn't not automatically mean that suspicions are wrong or their story is right. Best, Jim_Lockhart 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


The updated article is much better, thank you. Kudos to the author.
As to your commentary above:
Yes I do have a right to my opinion, as do you. But an encyclopediac article is not the place for them. I cannot speak for others who may have made edits that you didn't like, but I assure you, my corrections were an attempt to provide balance, and clarity, and my sources were authoritative and impeccable. I would expect an encyclopedic article to use sources that either covered the entire subject, including a comparitive of all various schools, or an equal representation of sources from all schools. For example, if you notice, most sources that are cited n this article came from one place - Nichiren Shoshu. Yet there is a dictionary of Buddhism at SGI as well. And many other dicitionaries of Buddhism that represent no single order. If you are going to use one,it is only fair to include the other as well. OR better, Use one that is all inclusive.
Beyond that, I find it unfortunate that you seem unable to divorce your personal emotion from the task at hand, for example you say:

"I think part of my problem is people changing everything they don't like in the articles, often replacing fact with fiction in the process. Given the sources they cite and the information they present, it is not difficult to imagine why they are doing what they are doing."

Who and what are you talking about? It sounds like you are accusing someone of something. Who are you accusing? What are you accusing them of? Why are you so certain that they "change things" because the "don't like" it? What are you trying to say here? And if I am not mistaken, anyone is free to contribute to this work.
It is obvious that you are very suspicious. But that doesn't mean that your "story" is right either (to coin a phrase...).
Rest assured, I am a librarian, and my sole motivation is to play my part in the amazing experiment that is the Wikipedia.You will find me elsewhere in Wikipedia (and other online services) wherever I find such fault as was found here.
I love the idea of Wikipedia, as an information person - but I am wary of, aware of, and critical of, the tendency of people to take everything from the internet as Truth. Perhaps worse is when someone takes a forum like this, and is irresponsible in what they write. Innacuracies are bad, but unfair personal judgements and attacks, un-challenged bias, confusion of facts, poor sourcing, etc., have no place in an encyclopedia. Even - or perhaps especially -- this one.
BTW - Here are a few sources which are of the type I would expect to see cited (along with those you already selected) in an article of this type:


I don't mean to be argumentive, but I'd like to clarify a few things.

The first three references cited are at the end of the article SGI/Sōka Gakkai sources, not Nichiren Shoshu; and the very first one is the dictionary published by SGI that you recommend be used. (Don't be fooled by the name of the publisher, Nichiren Shoshu International Center—NSIC is not affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu itself, but was an SGI-run organization; use of the name has been discontinued.)

I have used Nichiren Shoshu sources for portions of the article that I wrote (I didn't write the whole thing, I only edited the whole thing) because those are the ones I have ready access to. I would hope that persons with initimate knowledge of the other schools would write about them, though I think that information on (or arguments for or against) one or another particular school should be presented in other, discrete articles on those schools, since this one is meant to address the commonalities of all the schools.

Re My Problem: What I object to is people who change material, especially without reading the whole article to see whether the information they are introducing is already present. This is different from what you think "part of my problem" is, which is this: I have experienced numerous times, in all the articles I have worked about this and related subjects, people's "editting" by adding insulting comments, changing the phrasing into charged language, or even just deleting the whole article. None of the people doing this sort of thing have a user name—just an IP address—and if one traces their editing activities, their charges rarely go beyond similar vandalism. This you could easilly learn by tracing the article's edit history—something I often do when working on articles of any kind. The exercise can be very informative.

Btw, you claim your sources are authoritative and impeccable, yet you cite none of them; you also claim I will be able to find you elsewhere on Wikipedia and the Internet, yet you netiher identify yourself nor say what I should look for to find your stuff. Fwiw, I always check the edit history of other contributors before I start to work an article. Some have put a lot of work into them, and some are obvious very knowledgable and just need an editor. When people are committed to Wikipedia, I think they join up, get a user name, and engage positively with other contributors.

As for the sources you would "expect" to see, why should I trust your judgment any more than my own on sources? (Some of which are also the articles on Nichren and the various Nichiren schools in the Japanese Wikipedia.) I have had intimate knowledge of Nichiren Buddhism for over 30 years and have studied it from several different angles, even reading much doctrinal material in the original. I can assure you that general references on the subject—even Encyclopedia Brittanica—are not always accurate about the subject, specifically because they are general and their authors, not familiar enough with some of the intricacies. For example, they often mistakenly assume that a given term as used in School A means exactly the same thing in School B, when it often doesn't. An example in Nichiren Buddhism is the significance of daimoku or o-daimoku, which differs among the schools; such nuanced differences are even more pronounced when the subject is Buddhist terms shared by most of the major Buddhist sects in Japan. Yet authors of generalized works usually do not address such distinctions. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that authors can and do address them.

Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nichiren's voice missing?

Is it just me, or is Nichiren's voice oddly missing from this article? I hear nothing of his spirit - he argued strongly for the absolute power and integrity of each human being, for the great message of the Lotus Sutra which said that all human beings are equally endowed with the potential for Buddhahood -- yet all that is written here is that he opposed the various exisitng schools. There was a reason for this. What was it? - R --68.45.57.193 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi R. In the second sentence of the section Doctrine and practices, the article says "For example, as in Tendai but in contrast to many other Buddhist schools, most Nichiren Buddhists believe that personal enlightenment can be achieved in this world within the practitioner's current lifetime." This is a reference to sokushin jōbutsu, the concept that the Buddha Nature is inherent in all beings, and therefore all people have the potential to attain Buddhahood in their present form in their current lifetime. Do you think it needs to be stated more clearly? (Personally, I think the "in their current form" part needs more emphasis.) Jersey_Jim 12:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This really is the fundamental difference between Nichiren and other forms of Buddhism, and also between Shakyamuni's earlier teachings and that of the Lotus Sutra. And, really, it is at the core of the split between SGI and Nichiren Shoshu -- the former was holding to this point, while the latter, at least from SGIs perspective, was moving farther and farther away from that view, (by actively inserting a priesthood between the individual and his/her ability to attain enlightenment, and ascribing exceptional powers to the Dai Gohonzon). Perhaps non-Buddhists won't get the significance, but those who study Buddhism will recognize it. And for SGI vs Nichiren Shoshu people, this is really where it comes down to it - each of us must read Nichiren and try to understand - did he *mean* it when he said:
"...if you think the Law is outside yourself, you are em-bracing not the Mystic Law but an inferior teaching. "Inferior teaching" means those other than this [Lotus] sutra, which are all expedient and pro-visional. ...
"You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha's lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself..."
"...If you seek enlight-enment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain. - On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime WND p.3
and:
"Whether or not your prayer is answered will depend on your faith; [if it is not] I will in no way be to blame." - Letter to Lay Nun Nichigon, WND p.1079

If we believe in what Nichiren taught, then we cannot accept anyone else's attempt to insert anything or anyone between us and our enlightenment. Seems simple. No? SO yes, I think this point should be emphasized. - R--70.111.27.59 08:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SG/SGI as lay organizations

I disagree that Sōka Gakkai should be removed from the list of non-traditional schools. I took this list from the Japanese Wikipedia article on Nichiren Buddhism (as cited and linked), which I believe is evidence enough that Sōka Gakkai is generally regarded in Japan, its home country, as a new religion (Shinkoshukyo); this is also how it is described in most dictionaries and encyclopedias as well, regardless of language.

Further, I find no evidence on SG/SGI's sites to support the statement that they make no claim to being a religion in and of themselves. Can someone point me to some?

I wonder if what is meant by this is that they (SGI and its consitutent organizations, incl. SG) make no claim to being a distinct sect or school. But if this is what is meant, then what are they? The characterization of them as "lay organizations that support practitioners of Nichiren Buddhism" implies that they welcome anyone who claims to be a Nichiren Buddhist, but this is evidently not the case since they prescribe a particular set of practices (gongyo, silent prayers) and an object of devotion that no other Nichiren Buddhists share. Further, non-Sōka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhists are usually averse to SG/SGI's president. Distinctive elements such as these are usually indicative of a distinct sect.

Finally, the description of SG/SGI as "a support group for Nichiren Buddhists" is imprecise at best and misleading at worst, as SG/SGI is not a support group for all Nichiren Buddhists regardless of other affiliations, it is a support group for Sōka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhists.

That Sōka Gakkai wants to dissociate itself from its former ties to Nichiren Shoshu is understandable; nonetheless, why the obfuscation? I notice that in SGI's own English publications (incl. the Web), they gloss over this previous association. It makes me wonder whether they have also began air-brushing personae non gratae out of old photos, too. Jersey_Jim 13:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Interesting point about the "welcoming of other forms". I was thinking the same thing. But it isn't up to us to decide this point - SGI doene't specify Nichiren Shoshu, so who are we to do so? I like to think it will broaden its scope - I think that is what Nichiren was really intending. But that's my opinion - even hope. Nonethieless, in their own site they do not make any assertion other than they are there to support "Nichiren Buddhists," so I think it is beyond our role tostate other wise, unless we can find something more substantial to cite than SGI's defintiion of itself. I think that would entail finding not only the use of the term, but also someone able and willing to assert this as a point of argument or something like that, with the ability to prove why this is so, or not so. BTW, i don't know that SGI wants to dissociate itself - for all I know, they may want to reunitye someday, perhaps with the next High Priest. But at this point, it is going beyond our abilaties to assert anything other than that it is a lay organization. Unless some SGI official can be quoted as saying so.
As for airbrushing and obfuscation - these seem to me to be leaps of conclusion. If SGI is a lay organization, and says that it is, then that seems pretty precise and clear to me. People who start chanting TODAY are not doing so as Nichiren Shoshu practioneres, are they. Yet, nor is SGI a priesthood -- it is an organization of lay practioneres. SGI is not affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu, so why *should* they refer to them? That relationship is fast becoming ancient history, in my view (again, I speak for myself, not for SGI ... I have no idea what the plan is, IF there IS a plan of anykind, and I just don't have that much of an inside track, frankly...) Personally, I think Nichiren was on target. He got Shakyamuni, and, to the best he was able given what he was dealing with and the time he was in, he tried to point us in the right direction (just like Jesus, Mohammad, and every other great Buddha - remember, in my view since Buddhahood is inherent in all living beings, there are any number of people who have lived the life without necessarily taking on the name -- such as MLK, Ghandi, etc. And I think Ikeda at least, agrees, since he makes such a point of drawing our attention to so many different voices who have spoken very clearly across time and space, about the same prinicples which Shakyamuni and Nichiren both have descirbed as qualties of Buddhahood..)...until PEOPLE started messing with the meeages, that is... I just think the ideal of a preisthood is so strong a paradigm, even a lot of long time SGIers are not yet able to think out of that box, quite yet; hence all the emotionalism. Those who don't have or feel the need for that paradigm, have no need to justify or cling to that whole thing. It makes perfect sense, to me, for instance, that Nichiren Buddhists just be a bunch of people who are dedicated to the mystic law of cause and effect, and to the study of this law through studing the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren, and all the other folks who have been working it in their lives. Honestly, that's really what its about, isn't it? But then, that's my opinion, and it is also perhaps a "doctrinal" issue as people like to say) But like I said, that is my opinion. THe point of the articel is simply to cite the sources and pointout some of the key issues, etc. Unless that is done, we're off our mark.
I also caution us to be careful about citing Wikipedia - its like incest. We can't just use oureselves (ie Wikipedia) as our sources. Gotta keep looking outward to keep the gene pool fresh. - Ciao for now! - Ruby --70.111.27.59 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruby: Quick reply. You asked for sources for my statement that SG/SGI are usually characterized as new religions and lay organizations of NS; I've supplied four. Apologies for my wisecrack (above) about airbrushing. Though meant as a metaphor the typifies the actions of organizations that attempt to rewrite history at their convenience, it was gratuitous; I'll suppress the urge going forward. Now I see why you were upset with my changes about "practitioners." Originally, my point was that SG/SGI is not a support group for all Nichiren Buddhism practitioners, only for those of SG-brand NB; but this sentence is saying how the organizations see themselves, so the sentence is correct as it stands. Apologies for jumping the gun! m(._.)m (<-- this is a Japanese-style smiley that means "apologies". The m's are supposed to be hands, and the face (._.) is supposed to be someone putting their head to the ground while bowing.) Btw, I took out the "(see Sōka Gakkai International)" (etc) links because the links are already there, immediately after the bullet points. (Maybe your browser doesn't show them...?) Later Jersey_Jim 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Saw that, Jim, and seems a fair enough compromise. I'm cool with it. I appreciate the cites! (Although, even Brittanica doesn't have everything straight - that's because of the much slower, and painstaking process of editorial review that goes on behind the scenes of a source like that (the costs of "reliability and authority")as opposed to this kind of open forum (one of the cool things that is both blessing and bane, and what I just *adore* about Wikiworld!!)
As for everything else, no problem. I am really pleased at the progress in this article, aren't you? Thanks for the tips, too - the delete thing and the Japanese emoticons are pretty nifty tricks. Keep 'em coming...
And with that - here it is, what, an hour? Two?? after a said in the Ikeda article that I didn't have much to say - and here I am!!! I'm a maniac! (Is there a support group for this??? Like WRWA - Wiki Readers and Writers Anonymous or something like that??) Going to sleep! Night. |-} (That's me sleeping. Get it? My eyes are closed, and I have silly grin... I made it up! I couldn't figure out how to make drool, though. Like it? R--70.111.27.59 08:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Deleted Promotional Material

I deleted this section, as it is a blatant promotional piece. It has no place in this article. However, should it be rephrased, it would be of interest as part of the general set of descriiptions of various forms of Nichiren Buddhism. It said:

===Downloading the Gohonzon from GohonzonInfo Group===
Copies of Gohonzons inscribed by Nichiren himself may be downloaded from the files section of <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GohonzonInfo/>. Additional Nichiren-inscribed Gohonzons will be uploaded, as they are digitized and cleaned-up, on an on-going basis until all 128 extant Nichiren Gohonzons have been uploaded. High resolution copies are available for delivery by mail.
In the gosho Nichinyo Gozen Gohenji, Nichiren said, "Never seek this Gohonzon outside yourself. The Gohonzon exists only within the mortal flesh of us ordinary people who embrace the Lotus Sutra and chant Namu-myoho-renge-kyo . . . The most important thing is to chant only Namu-myoho-renge-kyo and attain enlightenment. All depends on the strength of your faith. To have faith is the basis of Buddhism . . . The Gohonzon is found in faith alone."
The philosophy of this group is to free the Gohonzon from the control of the sects, some of which use bestowal of a Gohonzon as a means of exerting control over their membership.
IF you object to the free distribution of copies of Gohonzons inscribed by Nichiren himself, then do not visit this group. However, if you wish to practice independently and want to get a Gohonzon without submitting to the control of a sect or organzation, this is your answer.
The owner of this group has been practicing Buddhism since 1971, and is a digital artist.

Peace - Ruby--68.45.57.193 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proselytizing Intolerance and Fundamentalism

The article deserves some mention of the expressions of fundamentalism in this religion, where it is intolerant of other Buddhist sects and engages in aggressive and often harassing proselytizing. (Unsigned, but added by User:70.231.240.13 at 23:13, 7 May 2006)


I think the proselytizing element is already covered by evangelical (as defined at 5. in this gloss) and the wording "to convert others by refuting their current beliefs and convincing them of the validity of Nichiren's teachings"; although it depends on your definition of fundamentalism, this aspect of certain Nichiren sects is explained in the body text; the newly added text qualifying the Nichiren schools' evangelical streak as one of intolerance is not entirely accurate, especially if intolerance is defined as advocating violence against or hatred of persons of other beliefs, actions which few if any of these schools engage in.

Regarding the specific mention of intolerance, I wonder if Nichiren schools' intolerance is of such a degree that it requires mention without further qualification: If, by intolerance, the schools' claim to being the only correct religion is meant, the word is accurate; however, this begs the question of whether they are any more "intolerant" than established Judeo-Christian schools in a manner making the attributes worthy of specific mention—i.e., is this an attribute not to be expected to some degree of any religion? Further, in current-day discourse, intolerant can be strongly POV when applied too generally (as I believe it is here).

The aggressive/harassing nature of some Nichiren schools should be addressed separately under the headings or articles covering those schools that engage in such behaviour, not in a generalized introductory outline.

Please note that the link added to evangelistic pipes to a disambiguation page with links to forms of Christian evangelism, and therefore is more likely to confuse readers than give them an explanation of evangelistic as used here; I have removed it for this reason.

In future, please adhere to Wikipedia conventions when making changes and comments. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Sales Hype

The following paragraph strikes me as POV
"efforts to convert others by refuting their current beliefs and convincing them of the validity of Nichiren's teachings. Nichiren Buddhists believe that the spread of Nichiren's teachings and their effect on practioners' lives will eventually bring about a peaceful, just, and prosperous society."
The POV assumption is that other sects' beliefs are in fact refuted, and that the Nichiren teachings are in fact valid whereas the others are not. And then the hypocritical assumption that such antagonistic practices are consistent with and conducive to their supposed aim of a 'peaceful just and prosperous society'. This claim is no different than any other fundamentalist of any religion, if only everyone believed as I do then there would be peace and prosperity. etc etc, it is the age old expression of the True Believer. (Unsigned, but added by User:70.231.240.13 at 10:54, 8 May 2006)

There is no such assumption: this is a description of shakubuku from the practitioners angle and is meant to neither affirm nor negate the practice; likewise, stating that the intended purpose is to build a "peaceful and prosperous society" is meant to neither affirm nor negate, but merely state that this is how the group or its subgroups see their activities. Whether these things are incongruent with reality (or hypocritical) is a judgment which should be made by the reader, not imposed by the writer. Disinterested mention of the facts, which should speak for themselves, should allow readers to come to their own conclusions; there should be no need for the writer to lead readers in a specific direction, which is—by definition—POV.

On the other hand, if you can rewrite this in a more NPOV manner, then do so; but I also believe that the place for providing alternative views of propagation practices is within the body text, not the introductory summary. And, as I wrote earlier (above), alternative views of specific practices should be included where they apply, not in generalized statements that do not differentiate between specifics. For example, if your intent is mention a critical view of shakubuku as Group Z practices it, then mention it as it pertains to Group Z so that it will not be associated with how Groups A, B, or C practice it when their practices of it are substantially different from Group Z's (and most probably from one another's as well). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Nichiren Buddhist schools: categorization

Please don't change this list and list all schools together. Though I appreciate the notion that some people take offense at the "non-traditional" category, that is nonetheless a objective interpretation far-removed from the rationale for using the description here: There are real differences between the traditional schools and the non-traditional ones, particularly with reference to the role of clergy, but also regarding the time period in which the schools arose (most traditional Nichiren schools were formed between the 13th and 16th centuries, whereas most of the non-traditional ones were formed in the post-Meiji restoration era; i.e., after the mid-19th century).

As to Sōka Gakkai/SGI and the additional of a remark: The inclusion of Sōka Gakkai as a "lay organization" came at the insistence of SGI-member participants, who wanted SGI seen as neither a traditional nor a non-traditional school, but rather as a lay movement. Considering SGI's history, this is not factually incorrect; meanwhile, it is also true that SGI is largely seen in a different light. Since this situation is fact, stating it is neither POV nor somehow unfair to the other schools because they did not get similar attention—most of the other schools have nowhere near the societal influence of SGI, in Japan at least, either. If you nevertheless feel that the note is unfair to the other schools, please explain the benchmark being applied for measuring fairness. It is also worth pondering whom we want to be fair to here: the schools, or our readers.

On the matter of my demeaning of the schools by categorizing them as non-traditional: this, too, is a subjective interpretation. As explained above, no such intent exists—not to mention that the attribution to me, personally, is not appreciated. If you still feel that the categorization labels are inappropriate, then please suggest something better; e.g., "Pre-/Post-Meiji schools," "Schools founded in the nnth century," etc. In other words, don't just criticize others' work, contribute too. Thanks, and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of conclusive statement about Nichiren's contribution to Buddhism

I have removed the following two sentences, added by Editing User:Wa dok on 11 july, for the reasons laid out below.

Nichiren's main contribution to Buddism was to place the focus on the Law rather than the Man. This allowed for the possibility of great inclusion, because while men have various traits, which may or may not please large masses of people, setting forth the notion of Law at the center of worship, allows more freedom for individual understanding of this Law, while dogmas set forth as important to a particular human being become more esoteric. Nichiren, himself, referred to his teachings as exoteric, and this indicates that he understood the flexibility his practice included, while other practices may have approached smaller audiences.

  • The statement that Nichiren "place[d] the focus on the Law rather than the Man" is untenable to light of his own writings—in particular, those (Kaimoku-shō, Sōkan mojō, Tōtaigi-shō, etc.) in which he states the opposite, negating the notion of earlier forms of Buddhism that the law is superior to the person/man (called 法勝人劣 hōshōninretsu) and saying that the law (or Dharma: 法 hō) and the person (人 nin) are in fact inseparable, e.g., of the same entity (called 人法一箇 nimpō ikka or 人法体一 nimpō taiichi).
  • The notion that the law should be given precedence over mortal teachers ("Follow the law and not the person," 依法不依人 ehō fu enin), if that is what this writer is referring to, is outlined in the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃経 Nehangyō) and therefore predates Nichiren by several centuries; further, it is also a central doctrine in Tendai Buddhism. Further, ehō fu enin is also an admonition to judge a teaching not by those who (claim to) practice it and their actions or opinions, but rather by its content and whether it was taught by the/a Buddha.
  • The statement that "Nichiren himself referred to his teachings as exoteric" is unsubstatiated; could the writer please provide a source—such as the writing or even the passage in which Nichiren stated this?
  • The statement "...this indicates that he understood the flexibility his practice included, while other practices may have approached smaller audiences" appears to be the writer's own conclusion; even if it is not, it is not sourced. Please source it.
  • Even if these two sentences were completely sourced, I believe they are out of place as inserted. They would be more appropriately placed at the end of the section on doctrines. Nonetheless, they seem to express at best a sectarian interpretation of Nichiren's teachings, in which case they belong with information describing the particular sect/school, and not in a bibliographical article on Nichiren.
    Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality

The best way of teaching it is to live it.