Talk:Nichiren/Archive 4

Quick Facts, Reincarnation
I would like to remove this mention of reincarnation from Quick Facts. No one can say reincarnation is a fact. Furthermore, there is no citation for this.

This discussion reincarnation could take place in a few different sections of the article such as "Development of Nichiren's Teachings". Various sects have different opinions about this and weigh it differently. I am sure there are scholarly sources that discuss this. In addition, Nichiren alluded to this in some of his writings at the latter part of his career. BrandenburgG (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Viśiṣṭacāritra is a character from the Lotus Sutra, not a real person. How can a person reincarnate from a fictional character?


 * Since I have not been an editor on this page, I think it is only fair if I wait several days before making any changes.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, under Quick Facts, can someone please clarify what is meant by "Senior Posting"? I am assuming this unclear term might stem from a translation problem.

Permanently protected template Template:Infobox religious biography
The template for religious biography is kind of restrictive for founders of new religious schools. For example "senior posting" might work when there is a clear lineage but isn't applicable to founders of schools. I am trying to improve the infobox in small pieces so it is easy to revert in case more discussion is needed.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to remove the category of "senior posting" I had to remove "location" (Japan) and move the references to Chih-i, Saicho, and Gautama to a "lineage" sub-category.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Next, I added the "denomination" subcategory in Infobox and listed it as "Nichiren Buddhism." Then I listed the religion as "Buddhism" which is how Nichiren regarded himself.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Syntax and grammar
Had to make a number of grammar corrections just to be able to understand what is being said. Also, the sub-section "Posthumous titles and status in major lineages" is virtually empty; the only sentence in it has nothing to do with Posthumous titles and status in major lineages. Didn't remove it, thinking someone was working on it maybe??--Daveler16 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the "Senior Posting" part, this is under part of the info-box religious biography template, while I have removed the reincarnation from Quick Facts that you had narrate out about the issue, you all can try to improve the syntax and grammar. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @SA 13 Bro, thank you for removing the "reincarnation" mention. As you can see in the following talk session, I made edits to the Infobox/Religious Figures which I think strengthens it. @Daveler16, thank you for your comments, as you can see in the following topic, I picked up on the lineage comment you made.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead needs strengthening
I believe the lead of this article requires a careful review. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, given that most WP readers only study the lead, it should be a concise summary of the article's content, have a neutral point of view, emphasize the most important facts, and be sourced well.

The current lead falls short of some of these criteria. For example, Nichiren's birth name is not the essential first thing a reader should see. Reflecting the viewpoint of some Nichiren scholars, the lead presents Nichiren as a restorer of the Lotus Sutra. However, it doesn't catch the alternative viewpoint that Nichiren was the founder of a new school of Buddhism.

Furthermore the opening sources are quite weak. Like some previous editor, I can't find the appropriate page in the Queen reference. The second reference (Sakashita) is a primary source, Christensen and Causton--although wonderful reads--are not recognized or neutral academic scholars in the field, and the Nichiren-shu reference is also primary and not neutral. I am not saying there is no role for these sources; rather, they just don't belong in the first two paragraphs of the lead.

If anyone has translation ability on his/her browser or access to Google Translate, I suggest that we look at the Nichiren article in the French language WP (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren#Lign%C3%A9es_nichireniennes). I think it works much better than our current lead in terms of content although IMHO it is also weak on sourcing.

I don't mean to disparage the hard work of previous editors. If any of you are still active on this article, would you mind working with me on strengthening the lead? According to the article's stats, about 150 editors are following this article. Volunteers are welcome! We can do better than Class C rating. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If anyone is curious, I provide a rough translation of the French-language article in my sandbox. It has its strengths and weaknesses, too.  I think it provides an interesting contrast to the current English-language article here.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lead
The opening paragraph of an article should give the most comprehensive sought-after information about the article to the casual reader. In this paragraph I am removing the mention of his birth name which is hardly the most crucial point for readers to see. Next, I include the mention that Nichiren founded Nichiren Buddhism which is, IMHO, the most crucial point for readers to see.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead
I want to removed several sources in the first few sentences of this paragraph: Queen (no page after a long time requesting inclusion of a page), Sakashita (primary source), Nichiren-shu (primary source), Christensen and Causton (not neutral sources).BrandenburgG (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Biography
I changed the subsection's title from "Early Life" to "Biography" because the actual content extends from birth to death. Also I added a short introduction to this subsection to give readers background to the scholarly difficulty of composing Nichiren's biography.BrandenburgG (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

16th Chapter
Scholarship does not seem to support the statement "His interpretation of the Lotus Sutra centers on the emphasis of its 16th chapter, The Life Span of the Thus Come One, from which he declares the chanting of Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō as the superior and correct practice for Mappō or the Latter Day of the Law." A citation is missing after this sentence, probably because it is not reflected in scholarship.

My solution is to start a new paragraph here in which events in N's biography are matched to his evolving understanding of the LS.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the lead are pretty strong and sufficiently sourced. What I mention above is now paragraph 4 and it needs to be sourced or restructured.BrandenburgG (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the sentences in question. We can reintroduce them once we find credible sources that agree that ALL Nichiren schools hold this belief.Frankly, I don't think that contention is substantiated. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 4 of lead
I think Paragraphs 1-3 are in acceptable form now. I would like to suggest that Paragraph 4 have the theme of N's impact/legacy. This would mean basically combining the current Paragraphs 4 and 5. This is doable because some of the current information in these paragraphs have already been covered in Paragraphs 1-3. Some are too detailed IMHO for a lead and should be moved to the article's body. This would all result in a strong and intact 4th paragraph. Perhaps the 5th paragraph (now Paragraph 6) could summarize the current status of N's influence today as it now does.BrandenburgG (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary of lead changes
I've been working here for a couple of weeks and finished my rewrite of the lead. I don't like working "solo" but it is what it is. I look forward to any feedback from other editors. I am very happy to restore or edit point-by-point. But here is the summary of the flow of the new lead:

Paragraph 1: gives a concise two-sentence summary of when N lived and his contemporary meaning. Paragraph 2: is a condensed summary of his belief system. Paragraph 3: is a condensed summary of the history of his contributions. Paragraph 4: is a condensed summary of the response of the Japanese authorities to N over the course of centuries. Paragraph 5: is a condensed summary of current scholarly controversy of Nichiren. Paragraph 6: is a condensed summary of who are current believers and practitioners.

I tried my best to maintain the contributions of past editors. However, IMHO the prior lead lacked cohesiveness and sourcing. There are still weaknesses in the revised lead but part of that is due to trying to incorporate the earlier work. More to be done.

It DOES flow rather nicely. I don't see any problems with statements made or their sources.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph in "retirement" section
I brought into this paragraph several good sources and I am looking for more.

The prior version did not reflect current scholarship (Stone, Habito, Lopez, etc.). These scholars convey a very active Nichiren who was leading his movement under the radar of the bakufu. It was far from "retirement" as we understand the word today. Stone's analysis of N's role in the Atsuhara affair casts a lot of light on this.

I am not happy with the final paragraph. It has been tagged as unsourced for a long time. I know I've seen some sources about the huge numbers of letters N wrote during this time so I'll try to locate. Also I am looking for a citation I recall having read about the number of people Nichiren was instructing there at Minobu (60-100?)--very impressive. The rest of the paragraph (where the scrolls are now, annual airing ceremonies, etc.)-- I don't recall seeing this in the literature. Please help if you can.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikko lineage
the Fuji branch of the Nikko-lineage eventually proclaimed Nichiren as the Adi-Buddha (本仏: Honbutsu) from infinite aeons ago, addressing him as the "True Buddha" of the "Latter Day of the Law" as taught in the Three Ages of Buddhism.

Simplifition: let's just say Nikko-lineage "eventually" proclaimed. I don't think this is accurate. That was one of the outstanding contentions from the start between Nikko and the other designated priests.BrandenburgG (talk)

With regard to the Nikko linage, you are using SGI material as a source which is biased. The only branch of the Nikko linage that sees Nichiren as the "True Buddha" is the Fuji Branch of the Nikko linage, all other branches of the Nikko linage of which two are within Nichiren-shu and the other two are independent schools see him as Bodhisattva Jogyo's aperance.


 * I agree with you on this point. Those references predate my efforts. You are making an important point here and I believe that each of these perspectives should be presented fairly and fully. Give me a couple of days to research and fix.

"I really do appreciate your feedback. I think articles improve when there is healthy interchange.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the final sentence of the lead to accommodate one of your concerns. I will be searching for an additional source.  I don't want to remove the SGI dictionary of terms because it has been reviewed academically.  You are right, though, another source should be there.  In the same manner I don't want to remove the Christiansen source even though it is problematic.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

In a note in reference to de Daimoku, to spell the Daimoku as Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is incorrect. The first character is Namu, there is no way to write Nam in Japanese or Chinese. The letter u in Namu is only droped for the porpouse of chanting the daimoku fast. You maybe confused due to SGI's literature in which they spell it as they pronounce it. However the correct way to write the daimoku is Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:341:303:45E9:AC54:DBF:C241:5C1C (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your point completely. I think the issue here is our service to WP readers, not to SGI literature. When I do a Google search on "Nam myoho renge kyo" vs "Namu myoho renge kyo" the hits on the former far outweigh the latter. When I do the same search on Google Books, which is biased toward scholarship, the former still outweighs the latter, although not so extensively. I think we have to strike a good balance here.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "Nam(u)-myoho-renge-kyo." I hope you will find this a good compromise.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nichiren's Childhood
The Childhood years or "birth" section should be reviewed there are actualy two stories about his upbringing, one says he was born from a noble family that lost its weld while another reconstructed from his writings says that he belonged to a fisherman's family. Gonzalopena25 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gonzalopena25, thank you for participating on the Talk page. I remember reading something to the same effect and I will try to track it down. This article was poorly sourced and we are making progress in finding neutral and reputable academic sources.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nam, Namu, or Nam(u)
The last thing we need is a proxy war in this article. I know some Nichiren people prefer Nam and they have their reasons. Others say Namu and list their reasons. In fact, a few sections up there was a short conversation about this. But we reached a compromise with Nam(u) because either side should be able to live with it.

This article is still rated at "C-Class" which is horrific since it's an important topic. May I suggest that we all live with the compromise at least until the article is better sourced? If we must have debates, let's do it here in this Talk section rather than having a series of reversions.

Thanks very much.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Death
The death section is heavely influenced by Nichiren Shoshu's side of the story. First, there is no proof that Nikko was the head priest of Kuonji temple in Minobu. There is no proof that Nikko took a part or all of the remains of Nichiren, if this was the case there would had been an scandal between Nichiren's disciples, no source mentions none of this. If Nikko was the head priest of Kuonji, why did no one pay him any mind and why did he not asserted his authority? Gonzalopena25 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gonzalopena25, thanks for your comments. I am not sure whether I see this as pro or con Nikko followers' interpretations. I would certainly agree to having all interpretations presented. What bothers me the most, however, is the complete lack of citations for this sub-subsection.69.114.162.188 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gonzalopena25, please check out the revisions. I believe they now respect your input.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"development of Nichiren's teachings"
This section is going to require a lot of work. The Stone source {2003, 1999) is invaluable but it is not being fully utilized. There are also too many primary sources (various Gosho of N) and references from websites owned by temples, individual priests, or the SGI.BrandenburgG (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Declaration of NMRK
The first paragraph is problematic. The Khoon Choy Lee source (Japan: Between Myth and Reality) cited here does not say anything like what appears here. I will make the wording conform to the text and leave the rest with a citation needed tag.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to remove the paragraph which is referenced with Harvey. This is not at all what Harvey states.

Old version: "Devotees claim that in 1253, Nichiren made a prediction of invasions of Japan, which was validated in 1274. Nichiren viewed his teachings as a method of efficaciously preventing this and other disasters: that the best countermeasure to these disasters were the rejection of all Buddhist practices and singularly practice the chanting of Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō as he prescribed."

In the new version I will reflect what Harvey actually states.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed the sentence "He later explained this choice was rooted in passages from the Lotus Sutra." It has no citation and is unspecific.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This section is now properly sourced. Comments and additions would be appreciated.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

First remonstration to the Kamakura government
This section is currently without any citations. Needs work!BrandenburgG (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Finished revisions to this subsection. Every paragraph is now cited. Comments and additional editing will be highly appreciated.BrandenburgG (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hokkeko believers
This part needs correction: "Hokkekō believers claim that on October 12, 1279 he inscribed the Dai Gohonzon for all humanity after the execution of the three Atsuhara farmers.[77] The Dai Gohonzon is enshrined currently at the Tahō Fuji Dai-Nichirenge-Zan Taiseki-ji, informally known as the Head Temple Taiseki-ji of the Nichiren Shōshū Order of Buddhism, located at the foot of Mount Fuji in Fujinomiya, Shizuoka." Hokkeko is not a particular organization, the term Hokkeko refers to all the believers in the Lotus Sutra and the term is used widely by different Nichiren Schools, however this belief does not reflect all the Hokkeko. Thus the term Hokkeko should be change to Nichiren Shoshu. Gonzalopena25 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gonzalopena25, please feel free to edit away! I am working from top down.  I am happy to have additional editors join in improving the article.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Writings in minobu
This phrase though quoted from an article does not seam correct: "During his years at Minobu Nichiren intensified his attacks on mystical and esoteric practices that had been accommodated by the Japanese Tendai school. It becomes clear at this point that he understood that he was creating his own form of Lotus Buddhism." Nichiren did not write major writings at Minobu or remostrations to other schools or the government. Also the words "mystical and esoteric practices" is very ambiguous in Buddhism this will need clarification. Gonzalopena25 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gonzalopena25, Thank you for raising this point. I tried a couple of minor tweaks that I hope addresses your concerns. Is it clearer now?BrandenburgG (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologize Nichiren did write some major writings during his period 8n Minobu Gonzalopena25 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)