Talk:Nichiren Shōshū

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nichiren Shōshū 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 Shōshū, 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.
Please place responses after the whole comment you are responding to. Initiate new discussions (comments on new issues) at the bottom of the page or use the Post a comment link at left. Thanks. :)

Casual readers take note: What follows is a religious debate. Richard8081 (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recent Reversion

I see that the criticisms of the previous high priest section has been reverted - without any explanation or discussion. As I and others have stated earlier, there are a variety of reasons why this section is inappropriate. Some of these reasons, such as it being a rival sects propaganda are less compelling. Others, however, are very strong.

A section detailing accusations (unproven, no less) against one man has no bearing on the religion as a whole, either in concept, principle, or contemporary relevance. Furthermore, Nikken Shonin is not the current high priest. There aren't any sections on the Roman Catholic page discussing former popes. It isn't like criticisms don't exist about personalities in a religion, but they are not relevant to an article about the religion as a whole - particularly when the person under discussion is not in power anymore.

As I and others have mentioned earlier, perhaps such a section belongs in an NST/NSA split article, but it does not belong here in my opinion. In fact, I am not convinced that it would even belong in that kind of article - since the accusations were post-split and did not in any way cause the split. Either way, the point is not what should go in that article, but what belongs here.

If you disagree about any of these points, or others mentioned below, then please feel free to discuss them here. Perhaps you will provide a strong counter-point or another relevant reason why this section should remain. If you revert the article without explanation, however, I will simply continue to delete the section. 128.239.111.80 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)AZ128.239.111.80 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV Issues

There are several parts of this article that make highly charged accusations and fail to provide supporting citations. The two worst sections are the section on the split with Soka Gakkai and the section relating to the Dai-gohonzon. I do not want to suggest eliminating these sections, as they are very important to the history of Nichiren Buddhism, but something needs to be done to defuse the text.

Jrhoadley 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe that there should be a separate wikiarticle on the Nichiren Shoshu/ SGI split. Either side's wiki article would be inherently biased towards their own POV as to what happened.

The questions on the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon are valid, and I agree that it should be less inflamitory.

I stated earlier, and I stand by my statement that the "Accusations Against the High Priest" section should be removed. Those accusations are nothing more than SGI agit-prop, and they refer to the former High Priest.

The SGI has waged a defamation war against Nichiren Shoshu for quite some time, and using their talking points in a wikiarticle about Nichiren Shoshu, in my opinion is nothing more than them expanding it to a new battleground. There are enough web sites out there that make these claims. If those accusations belong anywhere, it would be on the wiki article about High Priest Nikken Shonin Geika. RaiderSithLord 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Patrick P

[edit] Previous discussions

I think that it is highly unfair to continually include the accusations that were made by the Soka Gakkai, that are nothing more than retribution for Ikeda getting his walking papers.

I think that the accusations against the High Priest section should be removed.

The questions on the Daigohonzon is fair to be included, IMO is that is a real controversy among Nichiren Buddhists.

I would also suggest the removal of the sites critical as they are all SGI hit sites.

I am a current member of Nichiren Shoshu, and a former member of the SGI (post split) and I think that its time that their propaganda was no longer set out as legitimate sources.

RaiderSithLord 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Patrick aka RaiderSithLord

[edit] Nichiren Shoshu–Soka Gakkai split

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

It's not an easy thing to explain, as there was a long build up to the actions that led to the split. Basically, the Soka Gakkai stopped accepting the tenets of Nichiren Shoshu. Since they were founded to serve as a lay association of Nichiren Shoshu, it was only logical for them to no longer be a part of the sect when they started to adapt different doctrines. Ldavis

I would add that 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)


[edit] Makiguchi/Toda conflicts w/priesthood, freedom and Nichiren's teachings

Note: The following comment by Joe Gyo was originally placed between LDavis's comment of 11 January 2003 (see page history) and KPMP's comment of 6 October 2005. Though it is a further response to LDavis's comment, I have moved it here to preserve the temporal sequence of the messages.

In short, from the beginning Makiguchi and Toda questioned the priesthoods' interpretation of Nichiren's writings. They maintained that Nichiren's intention was to free people of relgious and political authority, not further subject them to it. For example, Makiguchi and Toda were imprisoned for opposing state imposed religion by the militaristic government, while the priesthood compromised on this point. In Makiguchi and Toda's view, this was in direct conflict with Nichiren's teachings, in which he talked at great length about the importance of each individual staying true to the message of Lotus Sutra, which also warned to beware of relgious and political authorities that do not support the people. There is a history of such disagreements. It did not begin in the 1970s. What changed in the 1970s was that the High Priest was becoming increasingly more authoritarian, which was in complete opposition to Nichiren's teachings. As usual, SG stood up against this, looking to the writings of Nichiren as their proof. - Joe Gyo --65.90.194.14 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


I have read Messrs. Makiguchi's and Toda's works to some extent, but I've never come across their saying, or even hinting, that they questioned Nichiren Shoshu's (the priesthood's) interpretations of Nichiren's writings; if anything, quite the opposite. If they had questioned the priesthood's interpretations, then why did they stand so doggedly by the priesthood? Why did Mr. Toda make visiting the high priest one of his priorities upon his release from prison? Why were Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai so intensely intertwined until the 1970s, and why would Soka Gakkai—if it felt that there was a fundamental conflict between its and Nichiren Shoshu's world views—go so far as to build Shohondo and claim that it has achieved kosenrufu?
The kind of dire conflict between the priesthood and Soka Gakkai that you describe above never even surfaced until the late 1960s, long after Toda was off the scene. The stuff about the priesthood being "authoritarian" only started when Soka Gakkai claimed it had achieved kosenrufu, and the priesthood said, No, it's not been achieved yet; it's too early to say that, so don't.
Yes, Nichiren wrote often of staying true to the message of the Lotus Sutra—that was the crux of his entire teaching: that straying from the Lotus Sutra was the deepest underlying cause of human misery. Nichiren made no reference to freeing people from religious or political authority—they were not even themes for him; and given that freedom from such authority is a concept of modern European philosophical thought, he was unlikely to have even thought of it. Even his treatment of women, which appears revolutionary by contemporary standards, was not a sign of his thoughts about gender equality, but rather those of the equality of all beings. Nichiren's intent was to free all people from the misery and suffering of their karma, the cause of which he attributed to their practice of misleading and incorrect (even heretical) teachings, particularly ones that negated the validity of the Lotus Sutra. This is the central gist of his Rissho Ankoku Ron and the very starting point of his quest to find the Truth:

Ever since my childhood, I have studied Buddhism with one thought in mind. Life as a human being is pathetically fleeting. A person exhales his last breath with no hope to draw in another. Not even dew borne by the wind suffices to describe this transience. No one, wise or foolish, young or old, can escape death. My sole wish has therefore been to solve this eternal mystery. All else has been secondary. ("Reply to Myoho-ama," p. 1404 of the Gosho Zenshu; quoted also on p. xxiii of The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin Vol. 1, NSIC, 1979, but not mentioned in the 1999 single-volume compilation, which see p. xxiv starting from the final paragraph)

That there is no or little conflict between many modern notions of freedom and equality (including racial and gender equality) is not attributable to their being part of Nichiren's message, but rather that they are more-or-less inherent in all forms Buddhism inasmuch as Buddhism itself has never had the authoritarian and oppressive baggage that informed western European cultures for so long. In this light, Soka Gakkai seems to me to be superimposing Euro-American notions of populist political thought on Nichiren's teachings, whereas—though Nichiren's teachings are not necessarily in conflict with these notions—Nichiren himself was not really all that concerned with them: His concern was how to guide all people to enlightenment on the premise that all people inherently have the potential to do so in their present form and in this lifetime (the central overt message of Shakyamuni's Lotus Sutra, and Nichiren's notion of equality).
For Nichiren, the important point was that people abandon the erroneous religions that he saw as causing their misery. Political and societal problems—and disease and natural disasters, for that matter—were not the primary cause of people's suffering and unhappiness; those things were the effects (in Buddhist terminology, actually only the influences [en 縁 or innen 因縁]) that people had to endure on account of the real cause (in 因), which was—again—their adherence to erroneous religions, superstitions, etc. This is the central message of Nichiren's Rissho Ankoku Ron, and the point that critics of the Rissho Ankoku Ron miss when they characterize it as inciting intolerance for other religions.
The distinctions I've outlined above are important, so please consider them carefully before firing off a refutation. Thanks, and best regards, Jersey_Jim 02:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC), reworked and reposted at 05:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


The questions posed are good ones - Why did SG deal with the priesthood? Were there differences between them or not? To what degree? When? Where? Why? How? The quick answer, in my understanding is that it was always pretty much just a good faith arrangement to help bolster and build the priesthood, and support the laiety, as well as themselves - Makiguchi and Toda were practioners, too, after all, and as such, were a part of the standard traditional structure. But that leads me to a point that's been sort of swirling around being worked on in my mind. It comes from that whole idea of "understanding the place and the time," something which Nichiren wrote about, based on what the Lotus Sutra said. And when I apply that concept to the history of this movement, I see things as a progression and an evolution, marked by a series of momentous "breaks" with tradition. I think its really about us understanding this evolution for what it is. Please indulge me, and I'll explain...Move it if you want...
I find it really interesting to look at how in each time, in its way, this practice keeps breaking through barriers. I mean Shakyamuni in the Lotus Sutra describes a time when the "Bodhisatvas of the earth" will "emerge," and start teaching his true teaching. If you've read it, remember the confusion amongst Shakyamuni's followers in that passage? They ask , and I am very broadly paraphrasing, "where did they come from? How do they get to be Bodhissatvas without having gone through our institutions? Practiced the austerities? whith whom did they study?" etc. And Shakyamuni greets these Bodhisatvas of the earth, and says, "They are legitimate - I taught them myself." And he also goes through this whole thing explaining over and over again, that his earlier teachings were provisional, the Lotus Sutra is the "true." This whole thing is describing a break through moment - an opening up of and breaking away from, the traditional religious order, and a surpassing of them...But, he said, it will be difficult for this to happen, "difficult to understand", "difficult to believe," etc. And at each break, it HAS BEEN, and get this - IS!!! - difficult for the people and institutions of the day to understand, or to believe.
Next up, Nichiren. He "gets" the Lotus Sutra, looks around and says "everything we are doing is based on "provisional teachings." Buddha said forget them. So what are we doing?" He argues that this has to be addressed - by doing so, in the context of his time and place, he was considered a radical - very few could believe him, or understand him. Even he himself didn't really get what he was doing until Tatinokuchi, and then again at Atsuhara. He was limited by the time and place in which he lived -- he interpreted the Lotus in accordance with how a typical Medieval person would interpret such a thing. He didn't go out and start an SGI 0--that wouldn't have fit the time or place. He started out working from within the institutions he'd known his whole life. He tried to reform from within, but was cast out. The institutions of the day could not seperate themselves from their own doctrine, their own dogma, their own various socio-political entaglements and their intellectual-limitations and or intellectual-overindulgences enough to envision what Nichiren was talking about. So they opposed him. But his was a breakthrough moment, too. He organizes a small laiety, he challenged the existing insitutions to THINK MORE DEEPLY about what the Lotus Sutra was saying; he addressed inequlaity of his time and place, women, etc. etc. etc., And, among many others, he writes a treatise that says until we follow the correct teaching -- that of the Lotus Sutra, -- we'll be stuck with the karma that we've got. For his time, this was a radical idea -- about as far as he could go with it -- BUT a huge breakthrough...
Then comes Makiguchi and Toda (I know, there are a lot of other folks that could be addressed - YOU address them, I only know theses guys - just do me a favor and see how they fair in my particular little theorem here). They get Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra. So, they, very logically for their time and place, go to the existing priesthood. Makes sense they would. It was as far as they could breakthrough given their time and place. But they did take it one step further, by creating an entirely new kind of organization of practioners, one that would eventually seperate from the priesthood (a la the Lotus Sutra?!?) This was another breakthrough...
Next up, Ikeda. SG and SGI have taken root. People all over the world "get" Nichiren, the Lotus Sutra, Makiguchi, Toda and Ikeda -- and the SG/SGI. What happens? The priesthood looks around at all these people coming up out of nowhere ( sound familiar?), and says "hey, we got a get a grip on this." If you ask me, if the priesthood had been paying attention to the Lotus utra dnd Nichiren, they might have realized what was happening, and rejoiced and stepped up to the plate. But even Ikeda and SG/SGI got caught up in this whole loyalty to the priesthood thing, along with a lot of the practioners. And why not? They are still of the time and place. It is an incredible break being formed right then and there -- a break from a priesthood altogether? I don't think even Ikeda could imagine it at the time. Hence, all of the initial confusion, the sense of failure and/or disgrace, at being "excommunicated" etc. etc. The testing of all those followers - which way were they going to go?
And that, I think is why there is struggle right now -- it is an ultimate showdown between the traditional relgious paradigm, and the one that Shakyamuni conjured up back in his original Lotus Sutra, a time when people who understood the true teaching are coming up and uniting, not to cause trouble, just to actualize themselves, and help others to do the same. But, as Shak said - "it will be difficult to understand and difficult to believe" and because of that, there will be "all kinds of persecutions" and attacks, etc. This is a breakthrough moment. And just like each one before us, we go as far as our time, place -- and our true understanding -- and yes, our karma -- permit us to go.
So in my view, (and please note this is really just MY VIEW - I am not representing any one or anything but myself, and what I come to, based on who I am, and how I understand, what little there is, of the Lotus Sutra, The Gosho, and the lives of the major players) the point - it isn't whether or not Makiguchi, Toda or Ikeda were respectful or obedient or militarists or not. These are important to understand in rder to understand time and place, etc., to put it all in context, etc. But the real point is that each in their own ways, they made a breakthrough towards freeing people. No, not freeing them from the authorities from without - but from the authoirites WITHIN.
Now, here we are, with real freedom staring us in the face, and it is OUR turn. SOme of us are still looking for this structure, so we get caught up in whether or not the priesthood is the leader or is Ikeda, who is right who is wrong, etc., etc,. etc. ad infinitum. But really it's all about us taking Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra to heart, really getting a grip on this vision that Shakamuni had, and understanding that we are a part of it - maybe we ARE it! -- we are the actors, and it is up to us to make that next breakthrough - the one that is completely radical, often misunderstood, often maligned. OUr challenge is to make the break with the traditional religious paradigm and establish something entirely new. Based on the Lotus Sutra. He gave us an example, that to be a Buddha, you did not need to practice through some structured organization, go through all kinds of austerities, etc. You need not even be affiliated with one of his own "disciples" esp. since they themselves were being told to discard the provisional teachings (on which they had based their lives) an "embrace the true".
But notice, Shakyamuni never said, nor did Nichiren, Makiguchi, Toda, Ikeda, or SG/SGI that there can't be other religions, that you can't have your institutions -- just that they aren't really all that necessary to becoming truly free and practicing correctly. Unfortunately, people have mistaken Nichiren, SGI, and Ikeda (etc.) for being against other religions, or as saying everyone has to chant and join SGI -- but I think they were all pretty much saying the same thing as Shakyamuni - call yourselves whatever you want to call yourselves, do what you want to do, wear what you want to wear, etc, - but recognize that if you aren't folowing the true teaching (that is equal access buddhahood, from within, based on your karma, and all the rest) and if you aren't helping people to become more free, more empowered, etc., then you aren't practicing correctly. He said to the people "don't look outside yourself" and "regard the teaching, not the teacher." Right?
Now, you have seen some individuals go off track - acting in wrong ways, as described by J, G, and me (R), - they are clinging to an idea/ideal/dogma, they are NOT practicing correctly, no matter whether they are SG, SGI or Shoshu (or something else altogether). And then, on the other, you have seen others rise to the challenge, striving to embrace the teaching, and living their lives in accord with it. They may be SG, SGI, Shoshu (or anything else, for that matter!) (That also goes to my point from a few weeks ago about why I see MLK, Jesus, Ghandi and many others as Buddhists, even though they don't chant or claim to be. Anyway...)
We are all playing out our roles in a drama foretold by Shakyamuni, played out by Nichiren (among others -- here's where I would argue that in his time, Jesus played a similar part) and now its up to US. The question isn't who is right or wrong - the question is what do you believe is right? What are you going to do about it? When? How?
And my question to Nichiren Shoshu is, if you can follow my line of thinking (and maybe you can't, if your teaching is really that different from mine...and I look forward to hearing your side and how its is different) but if you can, then with all due respect, how does one reconcile supporting a priesthood(or at least "a" priest) who doesn't seem (from my limited perspective, that is; I understand I may be misinformed or uniformed, and I look forward to hearing your views) to understand or uphold the Losus Sutra or Nichiren? Or you or me for that matter? ....
As for me, I'm hanging out at all hours on Wikipedia!... -- Ruby --70.111.27.59 21:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Ruby: Pardon me if I don't get back to you for a few days. My workload has just increased by a magnitude and I expect to be pretty busy for the next few days (perhaps until the beginning of next week). 'Nudder woids: I ain't ignorin' you. <g> (Communicatons like this are another reason why it's good to register and have your own User and Talk pages—that way, others don't have to be bothered with the personal stuff.) Jersey_Jim 08:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what happened is that the Soka Gakka began deviating from the 700+ year old teachings of Nichiren Shoshu, and moving their focus from the Daigohonzon and the Temples for worship, and towards veneration of their leader, Daisaku Ikdea.

Speaking from my time as a member of the SGI (1992-6), they are a master at Orwellian rewrites of history. They love to spew nonsense about Toda Josei being opposed to the priests today, but if you can find older printings of their liturature you will find that Toda had an undying trust in the High Priest. (Just one example.)

[edit] 2005.11.26 Rework

I have added some information to the article, but most of what I've done today involved reorganizing the sequence of paragraphs for better flow (bringing similar issues together) and adding subheads and sub-subheads for easier navigation from the Contents links.

I also checked the spelling again and Wikified the kanji strings and 'ō's and 'ū's.

I still intend to move the bulk of the material of NS's dispute with Soka Gakkai to a separate article with cross links, and I intend to eventually add more information on NS doctrines and its history.

If you come across information that you or your school disagrees with, please add your (school's) interpretation in an appropriate manner, by saying "such-and-such group sees this differently. This group believes [description] because [state reasons]." Lengthy, involved discussions should be given their own article or stated in an article on that specific group. For instance, if you want to represent the interpretations of the Kempon Hokke Shu, write an article on that school and outline its beliefs there, not here, and redirect readers who want to learn about that school to the article on that school.

Thanks Jersey_Jim 08:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 2005.11.29 additions by 70.111.27.59

Comments and questions on today's additions; first, the opening paragraph for this section.

The Japanese based religious group Soka Gakkai has been affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu teachings, since its beginnings, in the 1930s. Today, Soka Gakkai's teachings share many aspects with those of Nichiren Shoshu. However, in the mid 1970s, differences arose between the two organizations. From the perspective of Nichiren Shoshu, they centered around different interpretations over some Nichiren Shoshu beliefs. According to Nichiren Shoshu, they felt that Soka Gakkai was even introducing newly formulated doctrines of its own. Eventually the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood stripped Daisaku Ikeda of his presidency in the lay organization, and excommunicated him -- some say this includes all Soka Gakkai members, while others disagree -- 1991.

  • Why change "Japanese religious group" to "Japanese based religious group"? (If "based" is necessary, then it should be "Japan-based" anyhow.)
  • Why "has been affiliated with" rather than "based on"? I can see no rationale for watering the statement down this way other than to try to make Soka Gakkai's previous relationship with NS ambiguous.
  • In its original form, the paragraph said that the differences between NS and SG arose, but doesn't place blame. It does, however, go on to say that the priests felt SG was deviating from NS's teachings. By adding "from NS's perspective," the above implies that from someone else's perspective (SG's?), they were not over Nichiren Shoshu beliefs; what, then, were they about from a non-NS perspective, and why is that relevant? Or is the intent to imply as disingenuous the notion that the disagreements were about NS beliefs?
  • I take particular issue with the final sentence of this paragraph: The Nichiren Shoshu priesthood did not
    • strip Daisaku Ikeda of his presidency in [of?] the lay organization in 1991
    • excommunicate him in 1991.
All Hokkeko lay leaders, of which Ikeda was the highest ranking, were relieved of their posts effective 1 Jan 91, all with the chance open to be renamed later. This did not affect Ikeda's status as a leader of Soka Gakkai.
Ties to the Soka Gakkai and SGI organizations were severed (in effect, they were excommunicated) first, and Ikeda's name was removed from the roster of believers (he was personally excommunicated) sometime later.
  • The final sentence also claims that Ikeda's personal excommunication was seen by some to "include[] all Soka Gakkai members, while others disagree[d]": Only Ikeda's name was removed from the roster of believers. It was repeatedly stated in NS publications that SG members were still welcome at the temples and were still considered NS believers. This did not change until six years later when NS changes its governing rules to read that "Nichiren Shoshu believers who are affiliated with (members of) non-Nichiren Shoshu religious groups will lose their status as NS believers and be removed from the roster of NS believers" (my translation) on 30 September 1997, effective from 1 December 1997. All of this, having been declared through public notices and in publicly available publications, is a matter of public record.

The subsequent new paragraphs also describe some developments out of chronological sequence. This could lead to readers' confusing cause-and-effect relationships. Please review the additions for sequence and accuracy or appropriateness of some of the characterizations (like "blasphemy").

Best, Jersey_Jim 08:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (typos corrected, 11:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC))


[edit] Good Edits

Good edits, lately, in several of these articles, Jim. How'd you get the news on Nikken so quickly? What's the scoop? Not much said in SGI. No one even seemed to know about it, certainly no one even mentioned it until Sunday, and then only in passing. The comment was that the issue isn't about the individual - it is about the law and the teachings - all are equal in the law, no intermediary can stand between a person and his or her potential for enlightenment. Period. My guess, if the new guy wants to sing the same old tune, the song will stay the same...- Ruby--71.250.88.213 06:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the compliments. Believe it or not, I saw the news about Nikken Shonin in the Japanese Wikipedia on the night of the fourth local time (which would have been around dawn your time). Given a number of changes that have taken place in Nichiren Shoshu over the past several months, such as Rev. Nichinyo Hayase's being named chief administrator several months ago and that Nikken Shonin gave several interviews to internal media, it's been kind of in the wind and a lot of people figured HP Nikken would step down as soon as all the major undertakings he'd initiated were complete. Well, In the last of the big court cases closed on October 6, and in September and November he opened the last three new overseas temples (two in Indonesia and one in Singapore) he had been petitioned to found. So I guess he felt that, after 26½ years, it was time to retire; he is, after all, 83 years old. Btw, I really don't get what things like "no intermediary can stand between a person and his or her potential for enlightenment" mean. Someday you'll have explain that one to me (not here, though—a private talk page would be better). Anyhow, have a good one. Jersey_Jim 14:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of first four paragraphs under Controversies involving the priesthood

I discovered, by checking links that had been introduced into another article, that these paragraphs were quoted almost verbatim from another site, http://www.sokaspirit.org/sgi_ns/RNSPart3_cur.shtml. That means the material is copyrighted by another entity and therefore can't be inserted into Wikipedia in that manner. See Copyright_infringement and Wikipedia:Copyrights for details. If you want the content mentioned on the Soka Spirit site incorporated in the article, then please rewrite it so it does not infringe on copyright. Thanks Jersey_Jim 05:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I *thought* I'd already entered it!! Guess I forgot where! Wish I'd realized sooner -- could have been asleep by now. Forget it. Point made. Will seek your response in Soka Spirit. Wierd, though. I don't even remember seeing a soka spirit page... Goodnight. -R--71.250.88.213 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Hmmm. Tricky goings on, Jim. Are you unable to respond? Trying again...Unless you want to tell me where you saw this already and where I can find your response...
OK. wait - there IS no Soka Spirit article...Jim...tsk tsk! I checked the site link you gave, and that is to the actual Soka SPirit page. It does not say anything I have cited here. I actually made my own argument using links that are cited following each quote. So let's try this again:
R quotes herself from her own wordpad document:"Pretty cool. Didn't realize he'd been in charge so long. Ikeda's been there about the same amount of time, I think, right? I looked up Hayase, but it didn't pull up much. Not flattering, though. Keeping it quick and to the point (you can delete if it is out of place - its just easier given the time etc.,) I mean by "no intermediary can stand between a person and his or her potential for enlightenment" that Nichiren Shoshu asserts that the way to Buddhahood is through the priest, for example:
""one cannot master this sutra if one has not received the transmission [from the Buddha]."2 The Daishonin is telling us that in Buddhist practice it is fundamental to know of the Heritage and to exert oneself in faith under the direction of the person who has received the orthodox transmission of it." -- Reverend Jun'ei Anzawa and Reverend Hakudo Mori, The Significance of the Heritage: the Ultimate Matter of Kechimyaku©1995 Nichiren Shoshu Monthly, from Nichiren Shoshu Myohoji Temple website.
R quotes herself, some more, referencing the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, from the SGI site at www.sgi-usa.org, using search terms "outside yourself"
"Nichiren also states throughout the WND, time and time again - there is no law outside yourself:
"Nevertheless, even though you chant and believe in Myoho-renge-kyo, if you think the Law is outside yourself, you are embracing not the Mystic Law but an inferior teaching. -[On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime (WND001), Page 3, col 1, line 35, sentence 4 in paragraph 3]
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. - [On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime (WND001), Page 3, col 2, line 18, sentence 1 in paragraph 4]
If you seek enlightenment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain. - [On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime (WND001), Page 3, col 2, line 27, sentence 3 in paragraph 4]
Since the mind itself is the Buddha, and the Buddha is none other than the mind, what Buddha could there be outside yourself ?" - [Conversation between a Sage and an Unenlightened Man - Part One (WND013), Page 104, col 2, line 38, sentence 4 in paragraph 8]
"Never seek this Gohonzon outside yourself. - [The Real Aspect of the Gohonzon (WND101), Page 832, col 2, line 11, sentence 1 in paragraph 4]
Meanwhile, the High Priest that only they have the power to "activate" a Gohonzon, and that the laity are not capable of acheiving Buddhahood on their own." Isn't requiring people to go through a priest actually requiring them to seek the Gohonzon outside themselves? Isn't that contrary to Nichiren's teachings? - Ruby at it again...(let it sit at least until I logoff, would ya?) Good night! --71.250.88.213 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Ruby. I think you've misread something—because I don't quite get what you're driving at. My comment above is about a few paragraphs in the Nichiren Shoshu article. I don't know who inserted them, but they've been there for a long time. I was checking and fixing links one of which was the one cited above (http://www.sokaspirit.org/sgi_ns/RNSPart3_cur.shtml) someone inserted into another Wikipedia article, and reading it I noticed that its content was identical to the paragraphs in the Nichiren Shoshu Wikipedia article. I removed them from the article, as explained above, because their inclusion in Wikipedia is a violation of Soka Spirit's copyright.

As for the material from your Wordpad file... Well, I'm really not into arguing doctrine with you here. You're convinced of your stance, and I'm convinced of mine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter. My further thoughts on this, though incomplete, are here.

I'm confused by what you mean with "let it sit at least until I logoff, would ya?" Maybe we were both editing this page at the same time. (There's no way to tell unless you get a notice when you try to save. Did that happen to you?) Don' t worry: I'd never intentionally delete anything on a talk page.

In any case, enjoy the holidays, Jersey_Jim 08:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I guess that explains it. Somehow, everything I'd written in this edit page (a response to your comments about Nikken) had been deleted after I'd saved it, and your notice about the copyright etc, was there. So, I thought you'd deleted my entry, and that you were accusing it of being plagiarized. At first, I thought you were saying that my comments had appeared in a discussion of a different article in Wiki about Soka Spirit, and I thought "I guess I must have already entered this there". bUET, when I went looking for Soka Spirit page in Wiki, there was none. So then I went back and re-entered my comments. But, the same thing happened again, hence, the thrid time I re-entered, I begged you (as I was under the impression that you had done it purposely) to at least let it stay there until I logged off. As I was also under the impression that you were accusing my commentary of being plagiarized, I added the comment about it coming from my wordpad doc, and made fuller notations of my souces. Glad to know you wouldn't delete it intentionally. I was surprised by that.
I now know what you were referring to, however, as I just checked the edits on this page, and I see what you mean, now. No harm, no foul.
As for the differing positions, I am not saying it because I want to argue the poinss with you, or to convince you to see it my way - I am asking you to share your perspective - I am curious to know how these two very divergent approaches are both considered valid. I bear no grudge. Just seeking understanding...I say it here because I think it will be helpful for others to know this as well. But I respect your desire not to go into it here, so I'll check out your site instead. Happy holidays to you too! - Ruby --138.89.150.236 18:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I have a feeling I might know what was happening: Over the past two weeks or so, Wikipedia has been behaving erratically, probably because of server overload. I've experienced problems uploading (saving) changes, too, and on a couple of occasions lost everything (very frustrating!). When you save, watch to see whether a "couldn't contact server" error occurs. If it does, don't hit the "try again" button, but instead use "display previous page" (I'm not sure, but I think you can do this by pressing Alt+[left arrow] if you're using a PC; don't know what to do if you're using a Mac) and then trying the Save page operation again. One day last week, I had to repeat this about 10 times before I could get changes saved!

Best wishes for the holidays—I'll get back to you on content issues in a few days. Jersey_Jim 16:02, 25 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 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy of Slander's against the High Priest

This is my first time every utilizing the comment system on Wikipedia, so please forgive any impropriety or awkwardness.

I'd like to say that I don't think the information about accusations against Nikken Shonin is really relevant to the article on the religion as a whole. It is a 750 year old religion, and there is no mention of other dealings made by former High Priests. In fact, I think it is even more irrelevant considering the fact that Nikken Shonin is no longer the current High Priest.

At best this information should be kept as a stub or link from the split with the SGI section. Since I think it is only relevant from that context. [unsigned comment left by User 128.239.213.155 at 09:45, 7 February 2006]

I have long thought that and think that the criticisms directed at former High Priest Nikken belong elsewhere. I plan to eventually move them, probably to an article on the Nichiren Shoshu–Soka Gakkai/SGI disputes, but I haven't had the time to write one. Besides, it will be very contentious, as Soka Gakkai/SGI members will demand extremely rigorous substantiation of anything they do not like.
Btw, in the context of Wikipedia it is inappropriate to refer to criticisms of anyone, regardless of their source, as slander. Call them criticism and describe them and surrounding circumstances, but leave the decision as to whether they entail slander up to the reader. If they do entail slander, but readers cannot derive that information from your description, then the problem lies with the description.
Also, in future, please identify yourself when leaving comments behind. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance of Wikipedia etiquette. I am, however, a little disappointed that despite the fact that I raised this objection in February, and nobody has disagreed - in fact, others have only agreed or repeated the suggestion - there has been no movement on this issue. He has not been the High Priest for a while now, and this is not an article on the history of the school - in which case, it would have to be significantly longer and more ambitious.

I understand that it is relevant for many SGI members, and may be very appropriate for an NST/SGI split article as you suggest, but can't you save the section and then paste it when you get around to writing that article. I don't see why it has to be saved in this article, where I just don't believe it belongs, until another place for it can be found.

Now, I know I could just delete it myself, but as you have pointed out - I am not a regular Wikipedia-goer and I don't want to destroy anyone's hard work. Nevertheless, I would like to see some of the regulars who seem to run this page please take some action on this issue. Thank you. ~Andrew Z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.110.98 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other sources for LA court judgement

I have put a fact tag (citation required) by the account of the LA court judgement because it is very hard for another editor to verify due to the difficulty of getting to the Los Angeles District Court. Has anyone got a more accessible source for this? ireneshusband (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this. There has been quite a discussion around this issue at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability about this kind of question recently. Given how few editors have spent any time on this article, the chances of finding an editor who actually lives in LA and who would have the time available to make a special trip to the courthouse, are pretty slim. Therefore the source is effectively unverifiable. In any case, it may well be that the source for the material was another publication and that the link to the court judgement should therefore be an indirect one. ireneshusband (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I ended up deleting the whole section entitled "accusations against the high priest" for the following reasons:

  • None of it was verifiable.
  • The section focused entirely on legal cases even though many of the charges made against Abe have been about his general character or his interpretation of Buddhist teachings and therefore not likely to end up in a civil court.
  • The high priest in question is not the current one, which means that there can be little justification for it having a section of its own. It would be better criticisms of Nikken Abe to be dealt with in detail in Nikken Abe's own article, and perhaps also in an article on the dispute between Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI. ireneshusband (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Detail

Usually Wikipedia articles have a section for "References in Popular Culture" (or something like that), I just wanted to mention that the Nichiren Shoshu sect was featured in the 1973 film, "The Last Detail" starring Jack Nicholson.76.244.55.2 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Corto