Talk:Nichiren Shoshu/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Identical pages under two article headings (resolved)

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.

The two titles are not synomymous; "Nichiren Buddhism" is a term that encompasses many (I think about 40) sects of Buddhism; Nichiren Shoshu is one of these sects. Ldavis

It might be more fair to say that there was a difference of opinion between the priests who run Nichiren Shoshu and the leaders of the Soka Gakkai. However, my own belief is that it'd be more accurate to say that the falling out came because of egos of people on both sides; had those egos not gotten in the way, the differences over doctrine would/could probably have been worked out. Enumclaw

Two identical pages are unwarranted, as Nichiren Shoshu is one form of Nichiren Buddhism—the page on Nichiren Buddhism should cover the other (major) Nichiren sects (Minobu-ha, Ikegami-ha, etc.) as well as mention Nichiren Shoshu; but Nichiren Shoshu is also big and influential enough that it should perhaps have its own article. The Soka Gakkai–Nichiren Shoshu split is, or should be kept, separate and it is indeed rather complicated. Egos are not the only issues involved. Unfortunately, the situation is also very emotional, and articles on related subjects are likely to be the object of vandalism. JALockhart


Category question

Should I put this into the category Category:Soka Gakkai or not? I know it's not affiliated with SGI anymore, but since SGI is a big part of their past, it might warrant linkage. What do people say? --Carl 07:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it's probably not a good idea. It would be like putting Roman Catholicism in Category:Protestantism. - Nat Krause 05:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree. Jim_Lockhart 01:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


No longer identical: Major rewrite, suggest name change

I've done a major rewrite of the Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism articles, so they are no longer identical and information in more-appropriately apportioned between them. POV stuff has also been removed or neutralized. I'd like to suggest also a name change for the Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism article, to just Nichiren Shoshu or Nichiren Shoshu school, since this would be more consistent with the naming of articles on other schools. Jim_Lockhart 01:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done further work on this article and am trying to give it an easier-to-follow flow while sorting out some of the other problems. Please consider it a work in progress.

Meanwhile, in a recent edit, 69.54.78.162 added the following, about which I'd like some clarification before I edit the material:

In 1991, high-level senior priests addressed a document to the Soka Gakkai leadership ("the Noke Document") which contained the following three statements:
  • The high priest, as the one and only recipient of the heritage or lifeblood, should be viewed as an entity of veneration, inseparable from the Dai-Gohonzon of the high sanctuary.
  • Faith toward these two fundamentals [i.e., the Gohonzon and the high priest] must be absolute.
  • The True Buddha Nichiren Daishonin, the Dai-Gohonzon of the High Sanctuary, and the successive high priests are all essentially one and inseparable. (Dai-Nichiren [Nichiren Shoshu organ magazine], Sept. 1991)

I have the magazine and would like to reference it, but don't feel reading through the whole haystack searching for this needle: could you supply a page number or article name? Or perhaps a web link to the document?

Needless to say, the doctrine that the high priest, exclusively, is equally venerable as the Gohonzon and Nichiren exists nowhere in the teachings of Nichiren or Nikko. It is a doctrine that varies markedly from the original teachings of the school.

Hmmm. As I recall, NS has made no claim that the three were equally venerable, only that they were essentially one and inseparable--i.e., that one could not be discarded without discarding the rest. It might be noted that this notion is consistent with NS's traditional interpretation of the Three Treasures.

In addition, High Priest Nikken made the following statement in August 1997 at the head temple: Because the high priest is the living Shakyamuni and Nichiren, if you speak ill of him, you will fall into hell.

Do you have a source for this? I've followed HP Nikken for years and never heard him make, or read of him making, such a statement. This smacks of a perhaps misleading paraphrase of something he's said, but without critical context; or perhaps its attributable to someone's poor comprehension of the Jpnese original. In any case, HP Nikken's telling someone they will "fall into hell" sounds uncharacteristic.

If these claims cannot be substantiated, they should be removed. The NS-SG dispute can be described without the emotive baggage.

--Jim_Lockhart 16:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Was There Really an "Operation 'C'"?

Don't mind me butting in again, but can someone verify whether it's true that Nichiren Shoshu initiated a 'Operation C' against Soka Gakkai?TYGammadion 16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

SGI claims NS did; NS says it did not. SGI has never produced definitive evidence that NS did, and I think it would be hard for NS (or anyone else in a similar situation) to produce evidence that it didn't—there can be no evidence for something that wasn't; or at least, so goes the argument. In the end, it boils down to whom you want to believe, since this is basically as he-said–she-said situation.
Food for thought: SGI has long villainized NS, or at least most of the priests, internally for years; this has been going on for far-longer than the current outbreak of conflict. The first major round was undeniably initiated by the SG side, and its officials even apologized for their behavior; ever since then, in face-to-face situations, SG leaders would demonize NS officials while in public pledging their loyalty to the school. In this context, most NS sympathisers believe the notion of Operation C ("C" is alleged to stand for "cut loose", as in "cut SGI loose from NS") is a conspiracy theory designed to persuade doubting SG/SGI members that NS was the originator of conflict and eventual separation, and that NS wanted to get rid of SGI; yet it is SGI that now claims to rejoice in some sort of new-found freedom. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 09:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Dessert: Daniel Metraux, professor of Asian Studies at Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia, wrote: “It is apparent that the head temple felt that the Soka Gakkai had become too powerful and that it was eroding both the authority of the head temple and the functions of the general priesthood.” [Daniel Metraux, “The Soka Gakkai: Buddhism and the Creation of a Harmonious and Peaceful Society” in Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King, eds., Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. Albany: State University of New York, 1996.]
It is also said that Asahi Weekly, a Japanese weekly magazine, also carried a report on Operation C in its January 25, 1991 issue. - Joe Gyo --65.90.194.14 18:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
There is an element of truth in Metraux's statement, but one's interpretation of "authority" here is likely to inform one's take on what Metraux means, especially without the benefit of seeing the rest of Metraux's context. In any case, Soka Gakkai was actively seeking to undermine the authority of the priesthood—in the sense of its mission to minister to the faithful and interpret the meaning and scope of Nichiren Shoshu teachings and practice (which Soka Gakkai members were ostenstibly following at the time), though it might be more accurate to characterize the Soka Gakkai leadership's intent as seeking to undermine the credibility of the preisthood. Regardless of how it's framed, though, this was a primary source of friction between Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu. Soka Gakkai basically had worked out its own interpretations of Nichiren's teachings and practices and decided it no longer wanted (needed?) the priesthood and its pesky constraints on Soka Gakkai's style; but it needed to convince the majority of its membership that it was Nichiren Shoshu that had changed and "strayed" (shall we say) from the spirit of Nichiren's teachings*. One of its favorite ways of achieving this was to depict the priesthood (and its traditional organization) of being outmoded, old-fashioned, and authoritarian, and depicting individual priests as corrupt and steeped in debauchary.
* Whether either NS or SG was (is) deviating from or in compliance with Nichiren's teachings is an altogether different matter and irrelevant here: Both believe(d) their respective interpretations are (were) correct. The point is that one or the other needed to be depicted as having "gone astray" to justify the split.
Personally, I think Soka Gakkai would have been much more successful if it had just said that the priesthood was cramping its style, declared its independence, and gone off on its own.
The above aside, I think the Soka Gakkai–Nichiren Shoshu split up and all its backrgound deserve another, independent article in which the differences can be laid out simply and compared. I think that would be much preferable to the current state of affairs—i.e., these little battles over the truth at various articles of interest around Wikipedia. It's suddenly getting a bit tedious. Put it all in one spot and work it out there, so that those readers who really aren't interested don't have to wade through it all. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 02:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)