Sgi Buddhism, Sgi Buddhists

[OxfordWill]

I've got a very close friend who is a self described practicing SGI Buddhist. Now, I've read the wikipedia entries on SGI Buddhism, Ive read the SGI Buddhism literature which I could find and Ive asked some friends who are different types of Buddhists, what SGI Buddhism is all about.

I have two problems I am wondering if readers of the Buddhist TV forum can help me with:

1) I don't really understand SGI Buddhism. What's it all about? How does it differ from more traditional Buddhist systems?

2) My friend in question seems to take on board and believe himself the teachings that SGI Buddhism has. He has been going to meetings weekly for most of his adult life and he reads books that SGI Buddhists recommend he read. I have tried to read one of them but despite it being English, and despite the fact I have spent alot of time in my life reading some very hard scientific and philosophical papers and books, its like Im reading nonsense, I dont mean that I am reading things I dont agree with, I mean I literally cannot figure out what is being said. Although we are very close friends this is one discussion which leads us to strong disagreement and he will say I dont handle it well and I say he doesnt handle it well. Out of respect for my friend I am trying to work it all out.

What I understand so far is that SGI Buddhism makes some very strong claims about the way the world is. I would also say this about more traditional forms of Buddhism. It makes claims about the nature of reality, time, the place humans have in the universe, and from this it extrapolates another series of beliefs about morality, ethics.. in fact I cannot find a section of Philosophy it does not deal with. Ontology, metaphysics, science, etc.

I have asked my friend to explain to me what he believes and what SGI Buddhism believes. He describes his beliefs at length but I will sum it up as I understand it (and maybe I am misunderstanding it) as: he believes in a sort of universal "one-ness". I.e. that everything and everyone is all basically one thing. We recently had a strong disagreement about this which began from him sending me this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us, the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Note the word "delusion". He frequently claims I am deluded if I believe the planet and my own self to be separate, or the teapot and my own self to be separate. Is he using separate in a different way to the one in the dictionary? Do I lack the fundamental Buddhist lingo to get his point? He skirts these questions by posing more of his own, so I cant find it out by asking him. I asked if this means he believes things do not exist in their own right, and he replied:

"oh, i see, you see the universe and ourselves as separate?"

Unfortunately most of what he replies during these kind of conversations is in the form of question and seldom in the form of an answer or a straightforward argument. Now, to be clear, I do not mind if someone holds a belief or set of beliefs which are explicitly stated to be "beyond" or "outside" of the normal standards of rational thought. But my friend, and apparantly SGI Buddhism, does not state this. On the contrary, both parties seem to utilise the normal methods of rational argument to explain, and attempt to convince or validate their beliefs. For example, regarding his belief that the universe and self are not separate entities:

time is neither absolute nor definable

and so no period of time can be comparatively big or small...

time is intrinsically linked to matter and energy

hence albert

e=mc2

energy = mass x (speed of light)2

no one is independent

the above i.e energy (potential), mass (manifestations of physical world), time (cause&effect)

are also the components of the title of the lotus sutra

Myo (unseen potential) Ho (seen manifest) Renge (cause&effect/time)

Now, the first thing I notice when reading my friends' reply above is that he uses words like "and so". These are conclusion words. These words suggest an argument, or at the least, a set or propositions. The first lines seem like propositions, dont they? "X is Y". "A is B" "and so" (we might say "therefore") : Z / C

So it is fair, is it not, to analyse them using the normal standards of rational thought? Inference, induction, logical connectives, formal validity, etc?

I have always respected my friend and I want to take him seriously. More importantly, he takes these beliefs and SGI Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, seriously. He relates everything back to his Buddhist beliefs. If he acts badly, upsets a friend, or whatever (things we all do from time to time) he will explain it in a Buddhist way, or what sounds like a Buddhist way. He'll sya he hasnt been chanting as much as he used to. Or he'll say something which makes my brain explode trying to work it out, whereas others might simply say "I made a mistake, I shouldnt have done that" or "I was in a bad mood". etc.

I meet crackpots every day who I happily ignore. Most people I meet, even down the pub, hold strong convictions and beliefs which if true, have huge consequences to life (God exists, god doesnt exist, killing is wrong, killing is ok, wars are wrong, wars are ok, etc etc). Normally people explain their reasons in the form of an argument or several which can be easily recognised as a valid argument or not, but even if invalid they are typically uttered as if they are common knowledge to everyone. Im happy to dimiss arguments which seem illogical, but when its a close friend I actually want to understand his position and if its not possible to agree with him I can at least understand why I dont understand.

So, who knows what my friends means and can provide me with the best possible argument as to why its true? This in good faith.

[rockyysdt]

I have two problems I am wondering if readers of the Buddhist TV forum can help me with:

1) I don't really understand SGI Buddhism. What's it all about? How does it differ from more traditional Buddhist systems?

2) Is he using separate in a different way to the one in the dictionary? Do I lack the fundamental Buddhist lingo to get his point? He skirts these questions by posing more of his own, so I cant find it out by asking him. I asked if this means he believes things do not exist in their own right, and he replied:

"oh, i see, you see the universe and ourselves as separate?"

So it is fair, is it not, to analyse them using the normal standards of rational thought? Inference, induction, logical connectives, formal validity, etc?

So, who knows what my friends means and can provide me with the best possible argument as to why its true? This in good faith.

Hi O W.

I'd like to start by saying I'm definitely not an expert.

It sounds like your friend is heavily into belief through study & presentation rather than experience.

He appears to believe what has been presented to him.

Although many of us on this forum share information which may be viewed as belief, more importantly Buddhism teaches a system which if practiced allows you to become highly self aware.

Through regular sitting (meditation) you improve your depth of clarity & concentration, & through the practice of mindfulness throughout your wakeful day you become increasingly self aware.

What this practice will eventually do is give you self experience allowing you to determine what is real for yourself.

If you study the "how to", rather than "what is" you might find that this practice will yield many benefits without the need to believe in the esoteric or the unbelievable.

Self experience, something no one else can share with you, might be the only way you can have your questions truly answered.

Here is a link which I've posted before.

It touches on your friends belief that we might all be one or linked.

It sounds a touch boring at its beginning but becomes quite profound to the presenter, a woman with scientific background.

[camerata]

I have two problems I am wondering if readers of the Buddhist TV forum can help me with:

1) I don't really understand SGI Buddhism. What's it all about? How does it differ from more traditional Buddhist systems?

I'll let the SGI members explain that. Briefly, it's a lay organization based on Nichiren Buddhism, which is indigenous to Japan, but based partly on the Lotus Sutra, which in turn can be traced back to the Chinese Tientai sect. Chanting plays a large part in Nichiren/SGI.

What I understand so far is that SGI Buddhism makes some very strong claims about the way the world is. I would also say this about more traditional forms of Buddhism.

There is a tradition to describe what the Buddha discovered when he attained enlightenment as the "absolute truth" and the way we see thing every day as "relative truth." This tends to sound presumptuous. Think of it another way: There are two ways to view existence and two ways to experience it. The first is that we are separate from everything else. This is essential for survival (i.e. we evolved like that), but it causes all our suffering. The second is that everything in the cosmos is one and unseparated, rather than separate. Buddhists accept this view as being an ideal one because it leads to the end of suffering. The Buddha discovered that reprogramming the brain to actually experience existence like this is in fact possible and leads to cessation of suffering/unhappiness. This is what we call nirvana/nibbana. It's a reprogramming of the brain completely and down to the deepest subconscious level. I don't see any particular reason to call it the absolute truth, but it is a radically different way to experience existence. All Buddhists are simply reprogramming their brains. It's like self-applied psychotherapy.

Mahayana Buddhism (which SGI is part of) in particular tends to refer to the standard way of experiencing existence as a "dream" or "illusion." It's a teaching strategy. I think all forms of Buddhism consider "greed, hatred and delusion" to be the greatest obstacles to attaining nirvana. According to Theravada Buddhism, delusion is synonymous with "ignorance," and ignorance to a Buddhist means: "the confusion that fools beings by making life appear to them as permanent, happy, substantial and beautiful and preventing them from seeing that everything in reality is impermanent, liable to suffering, void of 'I' and 'mine', and basically impure." In other words, if you think everything is permanent, you'll always be unhappy when it turns out they are not. Youth, health and life itself are the obvious examples. It's quite easy to demonstrate that things are not permanent, so this is not a false claim.

[Brucenkhamen]

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us, the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Note the word "delusion". He frequently claims I am deluded if I believe the planet and my own self to be separate, or the teapot and my own self to be separate. Is he using separate in a different way to the one in the dictionary? Do I lack the fundamental Buddhist lingo to get his point?

This is a pretty standard Buddhist view of things. Different traditions may say it quite differently or stress certain aspects more than this but this isn't unique to SGI. Camerata covers this quite well above.

I think Chutai on this board would be able to answer specific questions you may have about SGI, i haven't had any experience with them beyond heresay.

It sounds to me you feel your friend is like a "born again buddhist" or suchlike, if his beliefs make no sense to you and he isn't prepared to try and present them to you in a logical reasonable way then why should you care, don't let it bother you. If your friendship works then great but if he's treating you like a potential convert, that's not really the buddhist way.

If you want to learn more about Buddhism perhaps reading books by other teachers or traditions will give you some perspective. Buddhism isn't so much a set of doctrines or philosphies to believe in, it's a practical process of awakewning and purifying ones mind.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[chutai]

I think Chutai on this board would be able to answer specific questions you may have about SGI, i haven't had any experience with them beyond heresay

I will indeed. But later today probably as I have a busy schedule at the moment.

It sounds to me you feel your friend is like a "born again buddhist" or suchlike, if his beliefs make no sense to you and he isn't prepared to try and present them to you in a logical reasonable way then why should you care, don't let it bother you. If your friendship works then great but if he's treating you like a potential convert, that's not really the buddhist way.

All of the above seems an oddly biased perspective really. Especially the bit about "born again Buddhist" (from what I can glean his friend is a Buddhist of long standing) , 'treating people as potential converts' and not being the "Buddhist way". None of us would be practising Buddhism today if Buddha Shakyamuni and latter emissaries had not travelled to propagate his teachings.

But I have no desire to pursue a potentially fruitless path of discussion such as this would undoubtedly elicit. Not least because it would serve no benefit in answering the OP's line of enquiry.

[Ave]

I'd like to help here but I'd prefer not to theorise, I can see where it could lead again. What I would like to say it that I hope you won't fall out with your friend over this.

Over the years I have received offensive comments for following a practice that has transformed my life into a great one and caused a lot of happiness to those around me. Most of those comments came from my very own family who constantly live in a state of suffering. I hope you don't lose your friendship over a religious belief. I gave my family many years to see the changes in my life and now they understand and respect me like they have never done before. Whatever you don't understand and even if you have heated arguments about this please don't lose respect and consideration for your friend. Sometimes notions and theoretical explanations are not what's needed, the deep feeling of friendship between you too might be what counts and you don't necessarily need to understand him or become an SGI member to appreciate the way he sees things.

Since we are talking about SGI I would like to make an announcement: A discussion meeting is coming up in Bangkok at the Witthayu centre on Saturday 17 October at 11 am. Also in Pattaya our October meeting is on Sunday 25 October at 1 pm. For more info PM me. We have some new people who have joined us to find out and experiment on the practice, a very international community that manages to communicate, study and understand with little English. It's the heart that counts..

All the best to everyone!

[OxfordWill]

I wish to reply to each of you but am about to dash out but want to add:

The SGI stuff has obviously become a big part of my friend's identity and I am not really wanting to "prove him wrong" or similar, only understand him better. It's a relatively new thing in his life- I think only a few years.

[dutchguest]

I have asked my friend to explain to me what he believes and what SGI Buddhism believes. He describes his beliefs at length but I will sum it up as I understand it (and maybe I am misunderstanding it) as: he believes in a sort of universal "one-ness". I.e. that everything and everyone is all basically one thing. We recently had a strong disagreement about this which began from him sending me this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us, the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Note the word "delusion". He frequently claims I am deluded if I believe the planet and my own self to be separate, or the teapot and my own self to be separate. Is he using separate in a different way to the one in the dictionary? Do I lack the fundamental Buddhist lingo to get his point? He skirts these questions by posing more of his own, so I cant find it out by asking him. I asked if this means he believes things do not exist in their own right, and he replied:

"oh, i see, you see the universe and ourselves as separate?"

As far as I have understood Buddhism in general (about SGI I don't know) we are seperated from each other not by nature, but by culture, by our own constructions, creations.

We identify ourself with our nations, religions etc. and by doing so separate ourselves from other nations and religions. Nations and religions are not things that really exist, that you can see or touch. Nature is something that really exist, and man is part of nature. That is why you can say nations and religions are illusions, constructions of the mind with no reality "an sich".

By identifying ourself with illusionary things we come to live in an illusionary world and devellop a false idea of "I", of identity during our live.

Buddhism says that we can undo this false state of mind by meditating, analyzing our mindprocesses and eventually can free ourselves of these conditionings by being aware of the way they once came into existence and the way they function.

This false idea of an "I" can be seen as a very restricted, imprisoned consciousness because it is clinging to, identifying itself with a specific time and place in the evolution of man: You think you are an American, a christian and this way of identifying restricts you and separates you from a Russian atheist.

Buddha teaches there is a universal side that we are mostly not aware of as we are filled with fear, hate, illusions, prejudices against others. Buddha also teaches -in my interpretation- that we can eventually free ourselves of all illusions and restrictions and live with a "universal, unrestricted" consciousness. And he himself has proven that it is possible.

[Brucenkhamen]

All of the above seems an oddly biased perspective really.

We all have biased perspectives, some oddly, being aware of them and being aware of what they are based on and whether they are skilful or unskilful is something allows wisdom to develop.

Reading between the lines it appears to me that OxfordWill is as perplexed about his friends behaviour as about his beliefs. Now I might be wrong, if I’ve misunderstood and the parallels I’ve drawn aren’t a realistic representation I’m sure he’ll let us know.

I think if his friend was just quietly following his new found path and not bothering anyone OxfordWill wouldn’t be bothered by it. He’d be quietly watching to see if it bore fruit, to see if it’s something he might be interested in himself.

Especially the bit about "born again Buddhist" (from what I can glean his friend is a Buddhist of long standing) ,

I’m sure most of our readers understood that this didn’t refer to his relative age or maturity.

Rather to a mode of behaviour, you may have heard of a group of people known as “born again christians”. Now OxfordWill’s might feel like is friends behaviour is similar, or he might not, either way giving him the opportunity to ponder the similarity or differences hopefully will bring a bit more clarity.

'treating people as potential converts' and not being the "Buddhist way". None of us would be practising Buddhism today if Buddha Shakyamuni and latter emissaries had not travelled to propagate his teachings.

Actually in my experience Buddhists generally treat people with respect and tolerance, not as potential converts. The irony is this hasn’t stopped it from spreading worldwide, and it’s is probably one of the reasons outsiders tend to like Buddhists more than people from evangelical religions.

For example Theravadin monks are not allowed to teach unless first invited to do so, I remember an Ajahn Chah quote which he summed up “We don’t need to advertise”. Newer schools might be a bit more evangelical, from the little I know about Nicherin Buddhism it is probably much more so.

But I have no desire to pursue a potentially fruitless path of discussion such as this would undoubtedly elicit. Not least because it would serve no benefit in answering the OP's line of enquiry.

Good I’ll hold you to that.

As I’ve already pointed out you are probably the best qualified here to answer specific questions about SGI. If you feel it is fruitless for OxfordWill to discuss and try to understand his friends behaviour then stick to that.

[chutai]

Actually in my experience Buddhists generally treat people with respect and tolerance, not as potential converts. The irony is this hasn’t stopped it from spreading worldwide, and it’s is probably one of the reasons outsiders tend to like Buddhists more than people from evangelical religions.

Yes, it may well be. But you seem to be trying to fit something into ill-fitting suit, and passing judgement on those in a situation that neither you nor I know very little of. In fact the OP was referring to a Mahayana sect, not a Theravadan one. There was also some confusion concerning basic Buddhist teaching.* The mission of a bodhisattva in Mahayana is to introduce others to Buddhism -- but only utilising the teachings of Buddhism according to the understanding and capacity and basic nature of the persons one is addressing, and according to time and place. The two terms employed in Japanese are shoju and shakubuku and both have distinct roles.

As you say , most people would be will be put off by an over zealous and insensitive approach to propagation. That's one very good reason Soka Gakkai has attracted over 12 million practicioners in 192 countries and provinces, in a relatively short space of time -- including 500,000 in Thailand who now practice Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism.

The heart of the Lotus Sutra is leading people to happiness, a tranquility that transcends all suffering. As emissaries of the Lotus Sutra, it would lack compassion and be almost a slander (of the Law) to deny others the capacity to nurture the four paramiters by holding such a jewels to oneself, or select few. It certainly wouldn't serve the progress of humanity.

*Which again brings me back to attempt answering the OP's original post.

[Ave]

May I add, with regard to propagating Buddhism, that after a period of time when starting to see and feel the benefits of the practice people start to notice and are actually drawn to a person spiritually fulfilled wanting to know more rather than being themselves trying to persuade them. SGI members seem to be invisible at times, it has taken me a few years before finding any members or English speaking centres in Thailand. Now, I meet new ones every month. Same with the buses...

[camerata]

in a relatively short space of time -- including 500,000 in Thailand who now practice Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism.

Blimey! A couple of years ago an SGI member told us there were 100,000 members in Thailand. Now there's 500,000. You must be signing up over 500 Thais a day. That's way more than even Dhammakaya. How exactly do you define a "member" for statistical purposes?

[camerata]

May I add, with regard to propagating Buddhism, that after a period of time when starting to see and feel the benefits of the practice people start to notice and are actually drawn to a person spiritually fulfilled wanting to know more rather than being themselves trying to persuade them.

Yes. That's exactly how it happened in the Buddha's time.

[OxfordWill]

Yes Brucenkhamen I am perplexed and concerned about my friends behaviour and because he explains his behaviour as related to his beliefs, almost all of the time, I am wanting to understand his beliefs. I'm a philosopher of a western tradition so that is my "framework" if you like, for judging it. Maybe it's lacking. I'd not like to think it is. Regardless, the best way I can explain it right now is that he is a truth relativist of some sort and I am most definitely not. I don't even know if Buddhism or SGI in particular has a term which describes the same thing but this point about one-ness would seem to at least encroach on the issue.

Things I am pondering:

a ) Is the state of englihtenment a state of being able to see oneself as a teapot?

b ) Isn't Buddhism about compassion and if so, how can one express compassion if one recognises nothing as separate or "other" to oneself? If I hit myself I do not need to feel compassion for myself. The feeling implies the very separateness that my friend claims does not exist.

c ) I have read some J. krishnamurti who seems to be very keen on the idea of experience and theory being importantly different. My friend talks like he believes everything is "one" not that he experiences everything as "one". Isn't this a crucial difference and a misunderstanding on his part?

d ) Why do my japanese friends not like SGI Buddhism? Why don't they want to really explain to me why they dont like it? Why are its leaders so rich? Is it like the scientology of Buddhism?

The more I look into it the more confused I am becoming.

Edited October 12, 2009 by OxfordWill

[chutai]

Blimey! A couple of years ago an SGI member told us there were 100,000 members in Thailand. Now there's 500,000. You must be signing up over 500 Thais a day.

Well, if that was me then I made a mistake as I was told over 3 years ago the membership that I have stated.

How exactly do you define a "member" for statistical purposes?

By those who have received Gohonzon.

[chutai]

May I add, with regard to propagating Buddhism, that after a period of time when starting to see and feel the benefits of the practice people start to notice and are actually drawn to a person spiritually fulfilled wanting to know more rather than being themselves trying to persuade them.

Yes. That's exactly how it happened in the Buddha's time.

How do you qualify this ? Did not emissaries travel abroad to propagate Buddhism ?

But certainly Shakyamuni did attract those by his demeanour. And that he went out of his way to engage people rather pojecting himself as being aloof. As we always say, that it is by our behaviour as human being that we are judged.But the impression that, e.g. Brucenkhamen is projecting is one of being evangelical zealots -- or at least in regards to the OP's friend . When that is far from being the case. As I've explained in my post concerning the expedient methods of propagation.

[chutai]

I'm a philosopher of a western tradition so that is my "framework" if you like, for judging it.

Only that learned through experience is truly internalised.

[camerata]

May I add, with regard to propagating Buddhism, that after a period of time when starting to see and feel the benefits of the practice people start to notice and are actually drawn to a person spiritually fulfilled wanting to know more rather than being themselves trying to persuade them.

Yes. That's exactly how it happened in the Buddha's time.

How do you qualify this ? Did not emissaries travel abroad to propagate Buddhism ?

It's right there in the Pali Canon. To a large extent in the time of the Buddha, people were attracted to his teachings by the demeanor and conduct of the Buddha, the arahants and the monks, plus the Buddha's personal charisma and teaching skill. I didn't say that in later times no one travelled abroad to propagate Buddhism, since we know they did. It's interesting, though, that in the entire Pali Canon there is only one brief statement about "spreading the word." It's kind of interesting that in the modern era it's the wealthy nations that tend to evangelize or proselytize overseas, i.e. the West and Christianity, Japan and Buddhism. And Dhammakaya is at it now that Thailand is a NIC.

[camerata]

Blimey! A couple of years ago an SGI member told us there were 100,000 members in Thailand. Now there's 500,000. You must be signing up over 500 Thais a day.

Well, if that was me then I made a mistake as I was told over 3 years ago the membership that I have stated.

Does SGI publish any of these figures? I couldn't find any.

How exactly do you define a "member" for statistical purposes?

By those who have received Gohonzon.

What if they give it back or simply stop attending meetings?

[Brucenkhamen]

a ) Is the state of englihtenment a state of being able to see oneself as a teapot?

I think you are taking the oneness thing far too literally, perhaps that's how your friend takes it I don't know. The way I see it is reality is in as we know it everything is interdependant, nothing exists in a vacuum. Each one of us is totally dependant on air going in and out, consuming food and excreting waste that is food for other organisms, and this is just on the physical level. It's hard to define where you and I start and stop, we cannot exist outside of our environment. Everything we do has an affect on someone or something else. One famous teacher uses the term inter-being, which I think is a more useful phrase than oneness.

If you think of the leaves on a tree, each leave has a seperate identity yet cannot exist without the whole, without the tree. We are like the leaves I think.

We need to relate to each other and our world through concepts, you, me, big, small, good, bad...., the trouble is we think that the concepts are reality, and this creates a lot of problems and suffering for us. Enlightenment among other things is seeing the reality beyond those concepts and those delusions.

Anyway I hope you find that more useful.

b ) Isn't Buddhism about compassion and if so, how can one express compassion if one recognises nothing as separate or "other" to oneself? If I hit myself I do not need to feel compassion for myself. The feeling implies the very separateness that my friend claims does not exist.

Compassion is recognising that as I feel pain so do others feel pain, as I suffer so do others. My suffering isn't somehow unique, seperate or special, it's part of the human condition. True compassion is not so much me doing something for you, it's a recognition there is a need and we're in this together.

c ) I have read some J. krishnamurti who seems to be very keen on the idea of experience and theory being importantly different. My friend talks like he believes everything is "one" not that he experiences everything as "one". Isn't this a crucial difference and a misunderstanding on his part?

I agree with you and Krishnamurti on this, unfortunately there are a lot of Buddhists who mistake belief for reality. It's not what you believe it's the path you walk, Buddhism is something you do, not something you believe.

For example if the concept of oneness shakes up your view of the world and awakens you to a deeper reality then it has worked, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Some people focus on the wrapper so much they never eat the chocolate.

d ) Why do my japanese friends not like SGI Buddhism? Why don't they want to really explain to me why they dont like it? Why are its leaders so rich? Is it like the scientology of Buddhism?

I don't know the answer to that, a quick google and you'll see a lot of information on the Net about them, some good, some bad. Here's a few that look interesting, I don't know how reliable the info is but it's a start.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/nichirenbuddh.../sokagakkai.htm

http://www.rickross.com/groups/gakkai.html

http://yellowpeep.blogspot.com/2006/05/sok...ules-japan.html

Edited October 12, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[chutai]

Does SGI publish any of these figures? I couldn't find any.

You'd need to contact one of the SGT centers I suppose.

What if they give it back or simply stop attending meetings?

If people give back their Gohonzon. then I'd imagine that they'd not be included on any further list of members.

Non attendance to meetings is no way of quantifying whether any one person is still chanting or not. People sometimes "disappear" from such an activity, only to reappear again, and so forth. No one is written off just because they don't attend discussion meetings. Nothing is quite so rigid.

Oxford Will

As you can tell, this thread has become one that requires answers on so many issues. My suggestion is that you read the following interview from Tricycle Buddhist magazine and then post any questions that you're unsure about relating to THIS

[chutai]

I don't know the answer to that, a quick google and you'll see a lot of information on the Net about them, some good, some bad. Here's a few that look interesting, I don't know how reliable the info is but it's a start.

Then why reproduce it here ?

Myself if I were to go down that root of reading only, then I'd like to think that I'd be courteous and rigorous enough to read the couple of books written by independent academics who have researched the SGI, and their conclusions reached from impartial observation, that I think could be accepted as being not only reliable, but also holding far more credibility.

But of course none of this is in anyway a substitute for using ones own wisdom and judgement in finding out for oneself. Otherwise , theres a tendency to spread things which could be interpreted as being tacitly condoning that which is manifestly untrue, rather than engaging in constructive dialogue .Such is the means of divisiveness and I'm afraid -- however unintended and unskillful that course may be.

Edited October 12, 2009 by chutai

[Brucenkhamen]

slander

There's a word you never hear in a spiritual context, never hear from other Buddhists, yet I've heard (read) SGI members use it several times.

I'm wondering why use such a legalistic word as "slander"? Is it a poor translation of a Japanese word? Otherwise to me it gives the impression of a climate of control or fear, maybe that's just me.

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't know the answer to that, a quick google and you'll see a lot of information on the Net about them, some good, some bad. Here's a few that look interesting, I don't know how reliable the info is but it's a start.

Then why reproduce it here ?

Just trying to be helpful. I don't know how reliable most of what I read on the internet is, I still use it.

[OxfordWill]

Thanks.

Chutai: I read that link.

My question is:

Is SGI Buddhism more about happiness-seeking than truth-seeking?

He says the real purpose of religion is to bring happiness. He says his mentor said the real purpose of religion is to bring relief to the sick and poor. At no point does he say the purpose of religion or SGI buddhism is to discover anything true about reality. In fact, he assumes a great deal about reality in a matter of fact way.

[chutai]

slander

There's a word you never hear in a spiritual context, never hear from other Buddhists, yet I've heard (read) SGI members use it several times.

I'm wondering why use such a legalistic word as "slander"? Is it a poor translation of a Japanese word? Otherwise to me it gives the impression of a climate of control or fear, maybe that's just me.

You've never heard the word *slander used in relation to a spriitual context , by which I presume that you mean Buddhist?. I realise that you've never read the Gosho (honored writings) of Nichiren, but he uses the word many times.

*To deny, oppose, disparage, or vilify the correct Buddhist teachings.

[camerata]

No one is written off just because they don't attend discussion meetings. Nothing is quite so rigid.

That's what I thought, but it tends to inflate the number of members. If 500,000 is indeed an official number (out of 12 million total in the world), I find it incredible considering the population of Thailand is around 65 million and SGI covers a similar demographic to the wildly successful Dhammakaya sect, which has recently adopted a "World Peace" theme like SGI. It terms of regularly practising SGI adherents, do you think that number is realistic?

[camerata]

You've never heard the word *slander used in relation to a spriitual context , by which I presume that you mean Buddhist?. I realise that you've never read the Gosho (honored writings) of Nichiren, but he uses the word many times.

*To deny, oppose, disparage, or vilify the correct Buddhist teachings.

This is probably an appropriate point to mention that Nichiren considered his teachings to be correct (for his time*) and all others to be incorrect (i.e. heretical), which is why he attempted to have state sponsorship banned for all other Buddhist sects and became such a nuisance he was exiled.

* "For his time" meant the degenerate age the Japanese call mappo, when the teachings had become so corrupted or lost that it was believed no one could be saved/liberated by their own efforts alone or at least by the existing teachings known. It was a weak argument for Nichiren, because the Pure Land sects had already used it.

[OxfordWill]

It's hard to define where you and I start and stop, we cannot exist outside of our environment.

Anyway I hope you find that more useful.

Yea, it's certainly a wartered down version of what my friend is arguing. Ontology isn't easy though and this view is over simplifying alot of important things which I wont bring up here.

Compassion is recognising that as I feel pain so do others feel pain, as I suffer so do others. My suffering isn't somehow unique, seperate or special, it's part of the human condition. True compassion is not so much me doing something for you, it's a recognition there is a need and we're in this together.

Yea.. and in the light of your own definition of inter-being this is logical.

I agree with you and Krishnamurti on this, unfortunately there are a lot of Buddhists who mistake belief for reality. It's not what you believe it's the path you walk, Buddhism is something you do, not something you believe.

Do most people agree with you on this?

For example if the concept of oneness shakes up your view of the world and awakens you to a deeper reality then it has worked, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Some people focus on the wrapper so much they never eat the chocolate.

Nice way of putting it.

thanks.

[Ave]

Sorry to pop in and out like this but I just want to share this with whoever is reading the Buddhist forum and would appreciate others' beliefs or forms of Buddhism. Today is an important day for Soka Gakkai. A friend of mine has just sent me the following:

Perhaps it is no coincidence that today in a book I decided to pluck from the shelf, these words are found as a frontispiece-

"Life's splendour forever lies in wait about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled, deep down, invisible, far off. It is there, though, not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If you summon it by the right word, its right name, it will come."

These words are taken from the diary of Franz Kafka, a twentieth century master of describing the intricate madnesses of the worlds within and around us. I never before knew about his conviction as shared here that something precious underlie the outward manifestations of our age.

Today is the anniversary of October 12th, 1279, the day on which we celebrate the inscription of the Dai-Gohonzon by Nichiren Daishonin.

In a famous letter to Kyo'o, the infant daughter of his follower, Shijo Kingo, he writes

"I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life in Sumi ink, so believe in the Gohonzon with your whole heart." (WND-1 p412)

The name of life's splendour, according to the teaching of Nichiren Daishonin, is Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. By chanting this phrase, we can attain the same condition of life as the Daishonin, of Shakyamuni, of all the Buddhas of the universe. As he writes in the same letter,

"Believe in this mandala with all your heart. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is like the roar of a lion. What sickness can therefore be an obstacle".