Talk:Nichiren Shōshū/Archive 1

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)

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)

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.)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

Previous discussions

• Talk:Nichiren Shoshu/Archive01: Identical pages under two article headings (resolved), Category question, No longer identical: Major rewrite, suggest name change, Was There Really an "Operation 'C'"?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Nichiren Shoshu as the most widespread?

I have not found any evidence towards the statement that Nichiren Shoshu is more widespread out of all other Nichiren Buddhism sects. In fact, the only evidence I've found is that the SGI is, coming in with 84 international constituents (http://www.sgi.org/about-us/sgi-facts/sgi-organizations-84-registered-constituent.html) in all 6 habitable continents with one or more centers in each of these areas (96 in the United States alone http://www.sgi-usa.org/sgilocations/results_list.php?pageno=1) versus their 22 temples outside of Japan (http://www.nst.org/an-introduction-to-nichiren-shoshu-buddhism/nichiren-shoshu-temples/). I'm deleting that statement. 66.177.72.141 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

I am a fairly bright and educated guy with a pretty good understanding of Buddhism and its history, as well as Taoism and Confucianism. Yet, I have read over both the articles on Nichiren Shōshū and Nichiren-shū and I cannot make heads or tails of either. Can someone please explain in plain language *what the central difference is in their beliefs*? I think something more like this is needed at the beginning of these articles. Thanks --Daniel (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DT Strain- The main difference between Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shu is who is regarded as the "True Buddha" whose teachings lead to salvation in this time period. In Nichiren Shoshu it is Nichiren himself who is regarded as the Buddha, persuant to the intention of Shakyamuni as revealed in Nirvana Sutra. In Nichiren Shu, there is still reverence for Shakyamuni himself. Nichiren Shu regards Nichiren as a profit of sorts, but does not recogize the fact that he revealed Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo as supreme over the teachings of Shakyamuni. Most importantly, Nichiren Shoshu believes that only a Gohonzon is necessary in the altar. In Nichiren Shu, Buddha statues as well as Gohonzon are present, representing the fact that the Gohonzon is not respected as the True Object of Worship which leads to enlightenment. I could go on, but I hope that helped! (Iheartceline (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

Where did Shakyamuni predict the appearance of the Buddha of True Cause

This article states that Shakyamuni predicted the appearance of the Buddha of True Cause, in the Fifth Five Hundred Year Period following his passing. Where is this prediction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.102.221 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Daijaku (great collection) sutra... Noisemonkey (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also in the Lotus Sutra but I'll have to look up the precise chapter.. Noisemonkey (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it strange that Nichiren made no such reference. There is no such teaching in the Lotus Sutra. Shakyamuni does say "this person will...", this is referring to a preacher of the Lotus Sutra. Not a 'Buddha of True Cause'. I'd like to see the exact passages you are referring to in both the Great Collection and Lotus Sutras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Doctrinal deviations and disputes" & excommunication of Sōka Gakkai: examples?

I would like to see a little more elucidation of the specifics regarding the "doctrinal deviations and disputes" that led to the excommunication of Sōka Gakkai. Were there also political reasons? 207.98.198.13 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this section in the article is biased, and needs to be more 'neutral'. Steve (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Source/Reference 2 is derogatory

It is degoratory not just to SGI, but to Nichiren Buddhism in general. I'd recommend using a different source. Either one from SGI or NST. Steve (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the citation with a ref from NST's website. Steve (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of wrong information

It is against Wikipedia rules to portray one side of a conflict as a "victim" and "good hearted" and "always doing the right thing". This is what the following part says and which I will delete soon:

"In 1991, Nichiren Shōshū officially excommunicated the leaders of its then-largest lay organization, Sōka Gakkai, after repeated attempts by the Priesthood to reconcile doctrinal differences and disputes between the two organizations. In 1997, those non-leaders who chose to remain as members of Sōka Gakkai, instead of returning to Nichiren Shōshū, were also excommunicated and lost the privilege of visiting Taiseki-ji "

It is incorrect to imply that the Soka Gakkai belonged to or was established by N.Shoshu. To describe the SG as " its [Nichiren ShoShu's] then -largest lay organisation" is not true. The SG was not established by Nichren ShoShu and was only affilated with the Head Temple. As for the excommunication event: to state that it occurred AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS BY THE PRIESTHOOD is a false statement. This statement amounts to bias and taking side in the Article, implying the "good guy behaviour", after "repeated attempts", which did not take place at all. This is a violation to Wikipedia rules. And it is not strange that the writer of this part failed to present a reference to support the claim. In reality, the Priesthood refused the offer from the Soka Gakkai to engage in dialogue - because SG members and leaders in the eyes of the Adminstration of N Shoshu - are 'inferior' to the Priesthood: "To talk about the priesthood and laity with a sense of equality are expressions of great conceit. In fact, they correspond to the five cardinal sins…” Nichiren Shoshu Head Temple's chief administrator, Nichijun Fujimoto, 12 Jan.1991.

Further: to describe the Soka Gakkai as that of "Leaders and non-leaders" is nonesensical and a product of a leadership-obssessed views. Why not say 'members of SG' instead of "non-leaders of SG"?

Also, the following statement about SGI members " ...instead of returning to N ShoShu" - this word: "returning" - is questionable as the mentioned members of SGI were members of SGI before and after the split. The whole section about N Shoshu and SG needs a better wider and truthful account.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

One Hundred and Six Articles

This Gosho is not regarded as authentic in other schools of Nichiren Buddhism, including Nichiren Shū and Kempon Hokke. I believe it should either be left out, or needs to be re-worded. Steve Milburn (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• This article is about Nichiren Shōshū and it's doctrines, which in the case of the Lineage via Nikkō is based on this particular Gosho. Whether or not other Nichiren schools accept this is actually irrelevant. Mollari08 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Relationships and Impartiality of editors

I changed the previous section (titled Excommunication ) into a wider in scope section about the Relationships between N ShoShu and SG, including the Excommunication. Wikipedia rules ask for Neutrality in presenting information. For this reasion both sides in the conflict between the Soka Gakkai and N Shoshu must be acknowledged. If one brings a statement regarding the conflict (or to that matter, anything in the text) then it should not be judgemental or biased but impartial and clearly referenced. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Using SGI sources does not seem to be a sign of neutrality.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, you are just unfair and your opinion is conflicting with the truth about the article because BOTH views of SGI and Nichiren Shoshu were included in the section of Relationships....

Please take a closer look at the TWO links : one of Nichiren Shoshu and the other on SGI. For the heaven's sake, was there a dispute between the two sides - or there was not? If you agree that there was a dispute between the 2 sides then your kind acceptance that including both sides point of view is the impartial thing to do. Now: including the Shoshinkai is not consistent with this section, as the Shoshinkai is Nichiren Shoshu's problem not SGI. Besides, to include a view that: " In the centre of this conflict was, to what seemed to some, the too large influence of Soka Gakkai..." this sentence is weak and lacks reference. What is meant by "it seemed to some"!!! Is it meaningful to say: well, some people had an imagination that it seemed to them that...what a crap!! Again the Shoshinkai was not SGI's problem, it was the struggle on authority within the proesthood, and whether they used SGI as a pretext or not, what has this to do with this section? SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due fairness the sentence “The Excommunication is regarded by SGI members as that of lay believers “spiritual independence” had no place here, since the article is about Nichiren Shoshu it is irrelevant how members of SGI are regarding the events or not.

Since this paragraph is about the relationship between SGI and the priesthood, which you begin with Ikeda stepping down in 1979 as President of SG, the founding of Shoshinkai is of relevance as its founding was directly linked to issues resulting from that conflict. The ‘some’ in this sentence would then be in reference to those priests and lay believers in Nichiren Shoshu who wished for less influence of SG AND also questioned the High Priests legitimacy, subsequently they left Nichiren Shoshu. So since a good portion of those who founded Shoshinkai were priests it is by all means of relevance I will add the referencw. I shall rephrased the sentence.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Probably you are right that the Shoshinkai issue relates to N Shoshu. But the tension between the SG and the Priesthood goes before the 1979 (when the Priesthood interfered in SG and pressured Ikeda to resign). Toda was forbidden from the Head Temple after youth of SG brought a corrupt priest to the grave of Makiguchi to apologise for the priest support of the war etc... It is a history of spiritual struggle of ordinary lay believers against authority. Anyway, I find that you are biased to the priesthood because you have objection to the truth about how SGI regards Excommunication. Why hide the truth? An impartial article should be open to both statements. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it is good that you should mention the long history of the dispute. It’s interesting that you bring up the incident with the priest (as that crossed my mind when you started the paragraph basically beginning in 1979) I did not want to mention it myself as it then would mean to see what other version of the incident exists. It wasn’t as if the young men asked if the priest would care for a stroll to the graveyard – they physically forced him, some say he was beaten ( Montgomery, Fire in the Lotos, p. 187-188). Again it’s not so much what you are writing that gets me going at times, but what you do not mention. Certainly one can only mention the information that is available. It is remarkable that many, not all, in SGI tend to rely on SGI-Sources only. I myself asked questions originating from sources that, lets say, were not officially sanctioned by SGI … I then was discouraged to seek such sources … in the long run I decided that I'd better leave SGI. The war time period, even the days before the war, is one of those issues, that have more than one side to it. SG at the time opposed the Shinto Talisman to be installed in Nichiren Shoshu temples. Subsequently SG was found not to support the war effort and its leaders sentenced as so called “Thought Criminals” … this is the official version and so far nothing is untrue about that. On the other side though, neither Makiguchi nor Toda could be ladled to have actively fought the regime either … no records that would suggest an opposing view to Japans colonial policies or speaking up against war crimes, in contrast Makiguchi was even in favour of Japan’s expansion policy.  An interesting article on the issue can be found here http://www.globalbuddhism.org/2/victoria011.html it took me some time to find it again, as there are some aspects in Makiguchis work that do not fit the picture SG has of itself today and for some reason the book mentioned must have fallen off SGI’s bookshelves. What I like about the article is that it tries to bring everything into the big picture as a phenomenon that affected a few Buddhist Schools in Japan.

When looking at Nichiren Buddhism as whole though one will find the so called Fuju-fuse schools who were in opposition to the government i.e. shogunate, other Buddhist faiths and state Shinto (State Shinto is not congruent with Shinto in general). Those following the Fuju-fuse principle were persecuted, hunted down and at times executed for almost two centuries.  

I find it amusing however, that as soon someone does not agree with, or is chritical of, SG automatically sides with NST or is labelled an enemy of the law etc. . I have my strongest reservations about the Taiseki-ji tradition for reasons of dogma. But I do not see SGI wearing a halo either in all this.Gassho --Catflap08 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

'Buddhists' supporting violence

Catflap, your time travel to the past to inspect who was supportive to the military authorities during the IIWW - deserves a new section.

I leave it to your intelligence to inwardly evaluate the 2 following events:

/1/ In the interrogation records of the military police of Makiguchi, his statement about the Emperor worship - the ground of the military's ideology of superiority and Holy War - is the follwing"“The Emperor is a common mortal…The Emperor himself should not be telling people to be loyal to him. This should be struck from the ‘Imperial Rescript on Education’ …To slander the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren is to invite certain punishment”.

/2/ Nichiren ShoShu sect’s High Priest announcement (1941) : “Today His majesty declared war….I can hardly suppress my awe and joy at this….”. Maybe you don't know about it , but that HP was burnt alive in a fire that consumed a temple after the war. So what we r speaking about is qite serious.

Now I come to your employing a miserable solicitor about the history of SG, the Zen argument. Your basket is empty, Catflap. Zen in aprticular are suffering from deep sense of guilt and inferiority towards true couraegous individulas who did not bow before the military. They are in deep guilt for their active support to the military- during the war. The most painful for them (and others) fact was the animosity of the military towards the SG, the banning of the SG then the imprisonment of its leaders.

Only mentaly sick academics believe that the military banned the SG and imprisoned Makiguchi and Toda for their support to the war. But this can be understood: a criminal tries to ease own guilt by saying others did the same. All "Buddhist" who supported the militarists, Zen you r bringing here, will try but will never be successful in easing the contrast of their criminal association with the military (offering 3 suicide planes and openning their temples for training soldiers to be like brutal robots when "on mission" (of murdering others; read B. Victoria himself). To say that Zen was "not alone", B. Victoria also include how other sects crawled before the military, and his only problem was the SG banning and imprisonment. So he had to claim something and his intelligence came up effectively with this argument that 'persecuting the SG by the military was because of their support to the military'. It is a psychological need for those who oppose the SGI to seek validation from others even holding a straw in the turbulent current of history and human sufferings. It is their mental difficulty to accept the truth: because the light of truth - of who was persecuted during the war - this light is blinding.

This shows you how the mind of jealousy, hatred (and fear of guilt of wrong doing) gets destorted: what he said was in-it-self a proof of the corruption of incorrect mind. BTW, the nonsensical argument you borrowed from Zen was refuted by academics or peers: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Traditional_Buddhist_Schools_during_the_War.html

FYI, I did not start the section by Ikeda's 1979 resignation...it was there before my editing so I kept it, as I do not intend to rewrite everything others wrote. Catfalp, do you recognise your path of research? It is going backwards: backwards to the war and the pre war and Fuju-Fuse and 2 centuries ago.... Why? because you don't find valid arguments from the present (and the future of kosen-rufu mevement) and that's why you dwell on past issues which are even not on your side! That's why I said : your basket is empty. I think your Gassho is a cover and I hope you contemplate and self-reflect on the quality of your argument. The future will tell which current of Buddhist action is giving the actual proof. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Going backwards in research is something not uncommon to research. Yet again you turn things around. Nobody, neither me or the article speaks of Makiguchi being imprisoned for supporting the war, but that he did speak in favour of the Japanese expansion policy and the role of the emperor. The article is citing Maliguchi's own words. His words may be inconvenient. Makiguchi was not imprisoned however because he opposed Japan's action on the Asian mainland … something SGI, or rather some of its members like to indicate. SGI's official wording is very careful though – the reason is obvious.

The paragraph is about the split – something that occurred in the past. Then you brought up the issue of that priest and the war – also in the past. I then dared to mention the Fuju-Fuse – forgive me. So I come to the conclusion that one only may speak of the past if its in favour of SGI's history or in favour the way SGI portrays itself? Also for your attention, labelling others in a discussion here in Wikipedia mentally ill is besides being a poor style of discussion an issue that may be be against Wikipedia guidelines. Besides the aggressive, insulting style you use in your reply do also not speak in favour of the organisation you seem to represent. Gassho--Catflap08 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies if you have perceived any of my comments as harsh or inappropriate. I have sincer respect to you. Nichiren was direct in his approach and I admire his strightforwardness and passion. He may have been perceived as harsh and aggressive but that was not the case, as his input emerged from compassion. I follow Nichiren, and again, my apologies if you were upset. I do not benefit from a bad cause.

As for Makiguchi's stand agaisnt the war, it is documented that the SG was banned after publishing articles against the war during the war:

The anti-war nature of the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai and its aim for peace and tranquillity for all people was apparent in its 1941 declaration” Our organization, consisting of those who embrace the Three Great Secret Laws, the essence of the Lotus Sutra, strives to achieve peace and tranquillity for all”. Just two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbour, Soka publication (20 December 1941) warned of the government’s reliance on the Shinto’s beliefs resulting in sacrificing people’s lives. Refusal of obedience to the militarist authorities resulted in the arrest (in 1943) of Makiguchi and Toda, who were charged with violation of the Peace Preservation Law  including blasphemy against “Emperor Worship”, the cult which started the “holy war”.

http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Soka_Gakkai_During_the_War.html SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly... this is what the article in question highlights. Makiguchis criticism of the regime came at a time when he and is organisation felt the regimes policy on religious matters No word on Japans expansion policy, no word about Japans war crimes, no word of defence about other faiths who were also under strain … his criticism was against state shinto and effect it may have based on his faith. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap: Makiguchi aside for a moment: your argument shows a tendency to expect people behave as YOU think they should. Your vision for Makiguchi is that he SHOULD HAVE done "more than he did", and you suggested him to have had written articles with the (clever) titles you are here suggesting. In general, to dictate others what they should have done, is an attitude of a mind with "tarnished mirror", in Nichiren's words - a mind which is unaware of its mistaken perspective (and its proportion to others).

Back to Makiguchi: he did indeed publish and speak out upsetting the militarists by his articles and refusing to issue any word of support for the war. History records are available to academics. While all Buddhist sects declared support to the war (and actively shared in spiritually preparing soldiers to kill) there was not one sentence of support to the war by the SG. This is a fact. The militarist’s displeasure from Makiguchi’s firm stand led them to banning his publication (May 1942) BEFORE the development of the specific issue of religious Shinto talismans and his imprisonment (June 1943).

The banning of ‘Kachi Suzo’ or Value Creation occurred on political background. Your separation of “political opposition” and “religious opposition” is invalid and meaningless as Nichiren Buddhism is about Rissho Agkoku Ron or Establishing Peace in Land through the Correct Teachings. If one opposes a religion of violence (Shinto) then one opposes its actions (war). Makiguchi declared by voice and publication what Nichiren Teachings are in regard to cause and effect, Buddha nature in all people.....

Secondly, the military gov. jailed him on charges of being a THOUGHT CRIMINAL, or being a person who opposes the policy of the military (at the time of war) - and not because of he was supporting the militarists (as B. Victoria tries to convince you).

Finally, for any logical person who is viewing history from own armchair ( like yourself and myself) you’d find 1 of 2 views to take:

/a/ Makiguchi was jailed by the military because he supported the military OR /b/ Makiguchi was jailed by the military because he opposed the policy of the militarists.

For many people, there is no difficulty in choosing one of these 2 perspectives, but it may help to know that the high scale of sufferings caused by the Japanese aggression were experienced by the Chinese, and that’s why you have 40 Chinese Universities (with hundreds of professors who trace history) - gave acknowledgement to the SG and currently some of the Universities have Departments established to study SGI literature - including its humanistic values declared by the 3 founders. But a mind of jealousy will burn with the idea that all these academics are lacking merit and understanding, or that they are all corrupt and biased. Such a mind is also a proof by itself of who is opposing the SG. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a false statement

In the section about the Relationships between Nichiren Shoshu and SGI, a statement appeared (about the demand for absolute Obedience), and that SGI members instead apply to Daisaku Ideka. I usually ask for citation or reference before deleting a questionable statement but there is no need here for that, as the statement is baltantly false aimed at misleading Wikipedia readers.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

False statement and spreading rumors

An editor claimed that "Absolute faith and Strict Obedience” to the High Priest" is , "a demand which SGI members instead apply to Daisaku Ideka." This is a false statement, and "validating it by a source (even if the source truly said so) does not make it a correct statement. The editor involved must show a an official statement from SGI to support his claim. I am challenging the editor to remove the statement, and if not we will go again to Dispute Resoultion Board, as this is another trial to falsify the truth and use Wikipedia to spread rumors.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do as you wish ... I wonder on wich baisis this is a rumour now. It bcomes more evident that you have difficulties to acceept the existance of oposing views. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am actually more than a bit surprised by the statement starting this thread. Does that editor wish to make every statement from a source that meets RS standards also be necessarily subject to his personal opinions that it is "correct"? I would urge the editor to read WP:TRUTH, and also WP:NPOV, and realize that it is not the opinions of individual editors which matters here, but what the reliable sources say. If one editor wishes to dispute whether sources meet RS and WEIGHT, there are other means to do so. However, if the material is sourced, unless there is clear consensus on this or some other page to remove it, there is a very good chance that removal of such material might be seen as an incident which might, perhaps, need attention from others. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

John, first of all, the lately added statement was in a sentence which presented an "official demand" by Nichiren Shoshu Administration published in its official magazine DaiNichiren, vol.2 page 13, a "policy demand" - so to speak about the requirement for "Absolute and strict obedience" to the High Priest. This is a policy demand, not an opinion of an observer. To contrast this - by any editor - there must be an equivallent official demand from SGI to validate what the editor is claiming. The burden of proof that there is such an SGI policy or demand is on the editor who inserted an opinion instead of an official policy. The section involved relates to the policy dispute and doctrinal disputes. Evidence should be on this.

In addition: there was no citation, no statement, no confirmation (or on what basis) the observation that SGI members have absolute obedience to Ikeda, an utter nonsense in terms of official policy and of reality of the mentor-disciple relationship. That's why I added as it could be that the editor misunderstood what he read in his provided source, it could be even the opposite to what is offered.

You raised a very importnat matter concerning the Truth. The reason why I used the word "rumor" in this title is because the editor has no evidence of the claim about policy, and an opinion is not necessarily the truth. If someone says that someone said that X is true, this is not the logic of the truth. I agree that we can say: it is true that there was an opinion. That does not make the opinion true. Because this is a repeating pattern, I am going to search for other means through Wikipedia and ask for measures to protect Wikipedia credibility against spreading unconfirmed stories or false opinions.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions are neither wrong nor true, it comes natzral that you do not share other opinions - its more than evident.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Proof needed

In the section about Relationship with SGI, there is a sentence claiming that a McLaughlin's article states that obedience is a demand " a demand which SGI members instead apply to Daisaku Ikeda". This is disputable because it clashes head on with SGI literature's definition of the Relationship - and first of all there was tag of a {{citation needed=July 2012}} as Wikipedia guidelines require to supply proof for that sentence. Removing the citation needed sign without giving a proof of that sentence claimed to come from the mentioned source may also mean that the editor is incapable of supporting his claim.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I very seriously urge all editors involved to more thoroughly read the policies and guidelines. If the article has a sentence which it indicates is derived from that article, then we are obliged as per WP:AGF to accept that it is supported by the article or to seek verification as per WP:V. In this context, adding a "citation needed" template, if the sentence is already sourced, is probably less than useless, because the material is apparently already cited. The above comment also indicated that there is a dispute with SGI's own literature. I am not sure that I see the evidence for that claim yet produced. Also, whether certain editors wish to believe it or not, SGI's own statements about SGI on controversial topics may well be among the least reliable, and independent reliable sources would be prefered. Rather than raising what seem to be unfounded and possibly spurious claims of violations on the part of others, I think it is more reasonable for editors to produce the exact evidence they have which specifically and clearly disagrees with the material produced, and perhaps then discuss the difference. If that doesn't work, there are other steps which could be taken as well, but that would be the first step in the dispute resolution process. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

John: The guidelines you referred to were fully observed: McLaughlin’s article in concern is verifiable and it was not my focus of concern. While the article does mention that SGI teaches the “the indivisibility of mentor and disciple” or other similar statements - it does not anywhere mention “a demand for obedience”. I do not think that it is scholastically acceptable to claim that McLaughlin said what he did not. In any case I am satisfied with the article itself and I thank the editor who brought it, as it describes - from a neutral point of view - a sample from a camp bent on criticising SGI: “Asahara repeatedly condemned Ikeda and Soka Gakkai as threats to the Japanese nation; he even devised a new doctrinal category of “Lotus Hell” – and not only that: they attempted even to use violence against its leadership: “we tried to carry out poa on Ikeda Daisaku, but failed” – and "poa" here indicates death ritual. Inspiring article indeed.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct Safwan that ONE source says so was an entry by you ... there is a difference between a quote and a reference.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Safwan decide wether you want to discuss major changes in articles or sections before or after you have made them. By nature this article will try to reflect Nichiren Shoshu's view, the article on SGI will have more weight on SGI's view on issues dealing with the split - and no - I am not a Nichiren Shoshu believer.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First I must thank you for bringing that article, which provided an actual proof of how SGI was threatened and attacked, not just by media words but by violently oriented terrorists who also tried to murder its leadership. Second: I agree with you that "quote" is what I meant, but I put it as "citation" , a word used sometimes to mean "quote" - but I should have been more specific (as also you could have been more specific). Third; you say you are not Shoshu believer, but it is not importnat to whom you belong, your humanity is what counts and impartiality - and in particular here on this screen. Now if the article is about Shoshu not SGI why did you bring a focus on SGI and Ikeda? You have contradicted yourself. Besides: one researcher's opinion is not enough. I will search for an independant scholar's reseach about Ikeda to lessen the bias you introduced by inserting onesided view about Ikeda, but this will shift the subject, however it will make a balanced presentation.You see how a "too much" overwhelmed focus against SGI - does not help in improving anything.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Safwan, this article is on Nichiren Shohu the very Buddhist School of Nichiren Buddhísm that stripped SGI of its status in the 1990's. I do not consider it wise to start an argument yet again in this article on who said what at which time. In comparison Nichiren Shoshu seems have to moved forward even after having stripped most of its lay believers of their status. Also concerning articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism your way of arguing does not help the articles in question who before your edits found some common grounds also with the participation of other SGI-members. Your quite open in your defence of SGI, an organisation that does not hold any ties with other Nichiren Buddhists and sometimes openly, sometimes behind closed doors condemns other Nichiren-Buddhists. And yes I once was in SGI. If time allows I will comment what you said in the other talk pages. Yes I do question that you can speak for all in Nichiren Buddhism, this is not meant in an offensive way, but with your edits you destroy what many many authors before you have a achieved – a common ground with which all the participants could more or less (sometimes less sometime more) could live with And who stirred it all up again … yeap an SGI-member. I shall congratulate you on that one as it proves critical voices right again. Shame for all the moderate voices that represent your organisation. Again some heated debates within in the next weeks and months. You can add as many references now as you like your actions speak for themselves – and are achieved.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again I have to remind you that the Talk page is not about personal judgements - whether about persons or organisations. There are lot of "you you you" and "SGI SGI SGI" in your post, and this is not healthy in terms of scholastic approach to improve articles. But I think you can do better and can cooperate to introduce suggestions to improve articles.

As for Nichiren Shoshu "stripping" others of their "spiritual status": this one word of "stripping" speaks of the whole nature of the problem. Many "Outside observers" understood the meaning of priests attitude of considering ordinary people's spirituality as the priests private property. Spiritual status is not a private property of priests to bestow it or withdraw it, but this belief may have been so in the Middle Ages. I think you opened a good topic, - thank you again -on whether one's spiritual identity is something given by others - or it is an inner determined dedication, independant from the opinion of others. This issue you raised relates to the article and and I wonder where it can be included, as many "outside observers" can comment on the stripping. Can you suggest a place or maybe even another article to discuss this intersting topic in the field of beliefs?SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay this is a talk page and its about the article including what might motivate you --- and yes you are an active SGI-member, it was you who made that obvious. And yet again there is a fundamental problem, its your one sided views, which is not a bad thing per se, but it stops you from taking a step backward and look at things form a birds eye view at times. Nichiren Shoshu had every right to do so what they did ... Taiseki-ji was their property its as simple as that. If it was wise to do what they did is a different matter and for an article absolutely of no interest. All an article can do is to describe ... bring in references on different views but what it can not do is to judge. And I can not get rid of the feeling that you want the reader to judge – its almost as if you are saying “oh, but we are so much better then xyz is”. It may sound harsh to your ears but most of the outside world does not even care what those two rivalry religious groups were up to ... but for the ones who are interested an article should be a brief summary with valid information. If there was a battleground Wikipedia describes who was fighting who and who might have won, but does not judge. Schisms happen all over the religious world very rarely can one clearly say who was wrong or right as matters of belief and different faiths can hardly be judged --- they are what they are ... beliefs. Before SGI appeared Nichiren Shoshu had set rules, some within Nichiren Shoshu felt that SGI did not stick to those rules and out they went. Again if being part of Nichiren Shoshu was as being the centre of utter evil one rhetorically might want to ask why did SGI wait to voice its criticism until being kicked out? Whether it be here in Wikipedia or elsewhere in the Internet its SGI who keeps pounding the drums against Nichiren Shohsu. They, Nichiren Shohsu, seem to have pretty much closed the case. Yes there is a lot of me, me ,me in my edits just as there is a lot of you, you, you in yours we are not robots. I just wish you'd become critically aware as you are editing form an SGI perspective in the long run you will end up in conflict even with moderate editors who are in SGI. I believe one of the articles you started has been deleted by now, has it not? I do follow your edits not only on Nichiren related matters … and you keep running into a conflict. Its an observation, a PVO maybe. but still about the articles in question … and as we are in the talk section perfectly fine. And I do not know about you but I do have an academic/scholastic background.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Catflap: Please understand that: Talk page in Wikipedia is not for chat, not for personal opinions, not for justification of own views, not for speaking about family members as you did once, not for self-endorsment of being a scholar or academic. You spent a considerable time on the above entry which quality is relevant to an uninformed yahoo chat group. Please read the guidelines on what a Talk page in Wikipedia is for.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no worries THIS is about the article and your style of editing. And no my degrees were earned and due to that I had to learn the hard way how to be neutral on issues. In terms of conetnt within the articles Wikipedia has an academic approach therefore other editors have also advised you to get falilar with certain policies that are, when looking closely, not any differnt for writing academic papers.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

“Logo” inaccurate

The crest depicted as Nichiren Shoshu’s logo is inaccurate (so is calling it a logo, but I won’t be fussy). The crane in the Nichiren Shoshu crest has three feathers nearly touching one another at the top, and features of the crane’s neck and head/face are different from what is shown here. Someone might want to fix that. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems you're right - the correct one looks something like this, does it? I've removed it in the meanwhile.Kiruning (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)