Talk:Nichiren Buddhism/Archive 1

SG/SGI as lay organizations
I disagree that Sōka Gakkai should be removed from the list of non-traditional schools. I took this list from the Japanese Wikipedia article on Nichiren Buddhism (as cited and linked), which I believe is evidence enough that Sōka Gakkai is generally regarded in Japan, its home country, as a new religion (Shinkoshukyo); this is also how it is described in most dictionaries and encyclopedias as well, regardless of language.

Further, I find no evidence on SG/SGI's sites to support the statement that they make no claim to being a religion in and of themselves. Can someone point me to some?

I wonder if what is meant by this is that they (SGI and its consitutent organizations, incl. SG) make no claim to being a distinct sect or school. But if this is what is meant, then what are they? The characterization of them as "lay organizations that support practitioners of Nichiren Buddhism" implies that they welcome anyone who claims to be a Nichiren Buddhist, but this is evidently not the case since they prescribe a particular set of practices (gongyo, silent prayers) and an object of devotion that no other Nichiren Buddhists share. Further, non-Sōka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhists are usually averse to SG/SGI's president. Distinctive elements such as these are usually indicative of a distinct sect.

Finally, the description of SG/SGI as "a support group for Nichiren Buddhists" is imprecise at best and misleading at worst, as SG/SGI is not a support group for all Nichiren Buddhists regardless of other affiliations, it is a support group for Sōka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhists.

That Sōka Gakkai wants to dissociate itself from its former ties to Nichiren Shoshu is understandable; nonetheless, why the obfuscation? I notice that in SGI's own English publications (incl. the Web), they gloss over this previous association. It makes me wonder whether they have also began air-brushing personae non gratae out of old photos, too. Jersey_Jim 13:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting point about the "welcoming of other forms". I was thinking the same thing. But it isn't up to us to decide this point - SGI doene't specify Nichiren Shoshu, so who are we to do so? I like to think it will broaden its scope - I think that is what Nichiren was really intending. But that's my opinion - even hope. Nonethieless, in their own site they do not make any assertion other than they are there to support "Nichiren Buddhists," so I think it is beyond our role tostate other wise, unless we can find something more substantial to cite than SGI's defintiion of itself. I think that would entail finding not only the use of the term, but also someone able and willing to assert this as a point of argument or something like that, with the ability to prove why this is so, or not so. BTW, i don't know that SGI wants to dissociate itself - for all I know, they may want to reunitye someday, perhaps with the next High Priest. But at this point, it is going beyond our abilaties to assert anything other than that it is a lay organization. Unless some SGI official can be quoted as saying so.


 * As for airbrushing and obfuscation - these seem to me to be leaps of conclusion. If SGI is a lay organization, and says that it is, then that seems pretty precise and clear to me. People who start chanting TODAY are not doing so as Nichiren Shoshu practioneres, are they. Yet, nor is SGI a priesthood -- it is an organization of lay practioneres. SGI is not affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu, so why *should* they refer to them? That relationship is fast becoming ancient history, in my view (again, I speak for myself, not for SGI ... I have no idea what the plan is, IF there IS a plan of anykind, and I just don't have that much of an inside track, frankly...) Personally, I think Nichiren was on target. He got Shakyamuni, and, to the best he was able given what he was dealing with and the time he was in, he tried to point us in the right direction (just like Jesus, Mohammad, and every other great Buddha - remember, in my view since Buddhahood is inherent in all living beings, there are any number of people who have lived the life without necessarily taking on the name -- such as MLK, Ghandi, etc. And I think Ikeda at least, agrees, since he makes such a point of drawing our attention to so many different voices who have spoken very clearly across time and space, about the same prinicples which Shakyamuni and Nichiren both have descirbed as qualties of Buddhahood..)...until PEOPLE started messing with the meeages, that is... I just think the ideal of a preisthood is so strong a paradigm, even a lot of long time SGIers are not yet able to think out of that box, quite yet; hence all the emotionalism. Those who don't have or feel the need for that paradigm, have no need to justify or cling to that whole thing. It makes perfect sense, to me, for instance, that Nichiren Buddhists just be a bunch of people who are dedicated to the mystic law of cause and effect, and to the study of this law through studing the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren, and all the other folks who have been working it in their lives. Honestly, that's really what its about, isn't it? But then, that's my opinion, and it is also perhaps a "doctrinal" issue as people like to say) But like I said, that is my opinion. THe point of the articel is simply to cite the sources and pointout some of the key issues, etc. Unless that is done, we're off our mark.


 * I also caution us to be careful about citing Wikipedia - its like incest. We can't just use oureselves (ie Wikipedia) as our sources. Gotta keep looking outward to keep the gene pool fresh. - Ciao for now! - Ruby --70.111.27.59 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruby: Quick reply. You asked for sources for my statement that SG/SGI are usually characterized as new religions and lay organizations of NS; I've supplied four. Apologies for my wisecrack (above) about airbrushing. Though meant as a metaphor the typifies the actions of organizations that attempt to rewrite history at their convenience, it was gratuitous; I'll suppress the urge going forward. Now I see why you were upset with my changes about "practitioners." Originally, my point was that SG/SGI is not a support group for all Nichiren Buddhism practitioners, only for those of SG-brand NB; but this sentence is saying how the organizations see themselves, so the sentence is correct as it stands. Apologies for jumping the gun! m(._.)m (<-- this is a Japanese-style smiley that means "apologies". The m's are supposed to be hands, and the face (._.) is supposed to be someone putting their head to the ground while bowing.) Btw, I took out the "(see Sōka Gakkai International)" (etc) links because the links are already there, immediately after the bullet points. (Maybe your browser doesn't show them...?) Later Jersey_Jim 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Saw that, Jim, and seems a fair enough compromise. I'm cool with it. I appreciate the cites! (Although, even Brittanica doesn't have everything straight - that's because of the much slower, and painstaking process of editorial review that goes on behind the scenes of a source like that (the costs of "reliability and authority")as opposed to this kind of open forum (one of the cool things that is both blessing and bane, and what I just *adore* about Wikiworld!!)


 * As for everything else, no problem. I am really pleased at the progress in this article, aren't you? Thanks for the tips, too - the delete thing and the Japanese emoticons are pretty nifty tricks. Keep 'em coming...


 * And with that - here it is, what, an hour? Two?? after a said in the Ikeda article that I didn't have much to say - and here I am!!! I'm a maniac! (Is there a support group for this??? Like WRWA - Wiki Readers and Writers Anonymous or something like that??) Going to sleep! Night. |-} (That's me sleeping. Get it? My eyes are closed, and I have silly grin... I made it up! I couldn't figure out how to make drool, though. Like it? R--70.111.27.59 08:34, 4 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 . 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 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Sales Hype

 * The following paragraph strikes me as POV


 * "efforts to convert others by refuting their current beliefs and convincing them of the validity of Nichiren's teachings. Nichiren Buddhists believe that the spread of Nichiren's teachings and their effect on practioners' lives will eventually bring about a peaceful, just, and prosperous society."


 * The POV assumption is that other sects' beliefs are in fact refuted, and that the Nichiren teachings are in fact valid whereas the others are not. And then the hypocritical assumption that such antagonistic practices are consistent with and conducive to their supposed aim of a 'peaceful just and prosperous society'.  This claim is no different than any other fundamentalist of any religion, if only everyone believed as I do then there would be peace and prosperity. etc etc, it is the age old expression of the True Believer. (Unsigned, but added by User:70.231.240.13 at 10:54, 8 May 2006)

There is no such assumption: this is a description of shakubuku from the practitioners angle and is meant to neither affirm nor negate the practice; likewise, stating that the intended purpose is to build a "peaceful and prosperous society" is meant to neither affirm nor negate, but merely state that this is how the group or its subgroups see their activities. Whether these things are incongruent with reality (or hypocritical) is a judgment which should be made by the reader, not imposed by the writer. Disinterested mention of the facts, which should speak for themselves, should allow readers to come to their own conclusions; there should be no need for the writer to lead readers in a specific direction, which is—by definition—POV. On the other hand, if you can rewrite this in a more NPOV manner, then do so; but I also believe that the place for providing alternative views of propagation practices is within the body text, not the introductory summary. And, as I wrote earlier (above), alternative views of specific practices should be included where they apply, not in generalized statements that do not differentiate between specifics. For example, if your intent is mention a critical view of shakubuku as Group Z practices it, then mention it as it pertains to Group Z so that it will not be associated with how Groups A, B, or C practice it when their practices of it are substantially different from Group Z's (and most probably from one another's as well). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of conclusive statement about Nichiren's contribution to Buddhism
I have removed the following two sentences, added by Editing User:Wa dok on 11 july, for the reasons laid out below.

"Nichiren's main contribution to Buddism was to place the focus on the Law rather than the Man. This allowed for the possibility of great inclusion, because while men have various traits, which may or may not please large masses of people, setting forth the notion of Law at the center of worship, allows more freedom for individual understanding of this Law, while dogmas set forth as important to a particular human being become more esoteric. Nichiren, himself, referred to his teachings as exoteric, and this indicates that he understood the flexibility his practice included, while other practices may have approached smaller audiences."


 * The statement that Nichiren "place[d] the focus on the Law rather than the Man" is untenable to light of his own writings—in particular, those (Kaimoku-shō, Sōkan mojō, Tōtaigi-shō, etc.) in which he states the opposite, negating the notion of earlier forms of Buddhism that the law is superior to the person/man (called 法勝人劣 hōshōninretsu) and saying that the law (or Dharma: 法 hō) and the person (人 nin) are in fact inseparable, e.g., of the same entity (called 人法一箇 nimpō ikka or 人法体一 nimpō taiichi).
 * The notion that the law should be given precedence over mortal teachers ("Follow the law and not the person," 依法不依人 ehō fu enin), if that is what this writer is referring to, is outlined in the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃経 Nehangyō) and therefore predates Nichiren by several centuries; further, it is also a central doctrine in Tendai Buddhism. Further, ehō fu enin is also an admonition to judge a teaching not by those who (claim to) practice it and their actions or opinions, but rather by its content and whether it was taught by the/a Buddha.
 * The statement that "Nichiren himself referred to his teachings as exoteric" is unsubstatiated; could the writer please provide a source—such as the writing or even the passage in which Nichiren stated this?
 * The statement "...this indicates that he understood the flexibility his practice included, while other practices may have approached smaller audiences" appears to be the writer's own conclusion; even if it is not, it is not sourced. Please source it.
 * Even if these two sentences were completely sourced, I believe they are out of place as inserted. They would be more appropriately placed at the end of the section on doctrines. Nonetheless, they seem to express at best a sectarian interpretation of Nichiren's teachings, in which case they belong with information describing the particular sect/school, and not in a bibliographical article on Nichiren. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Proselytizing Intolerance and Fundamentalism
The article deserves some mention of the expressions of fundamentalism in this religion, where it is intolerant of other Buddhist sects and engages in aggressive and often harassing proselytizing. (Unsigned, but added by User:70.231.240.13 at 23:13, 7 May 2006)


 * I think the proselytizing element is already covered by evangelical (as defined at 5. in this gloss) and the wording "to convert others by refuting their current beliefs and convincing them of the validity of Nichiren's teachings"; although it depends on your definition of fundamentalism, this aspect of certain Nichiren sects is explained in the body text; the newly added text qualifying the Nichiren schools' evangelical streak as one of intolerance is not entirely accurate, especially if intolerance is defined as advocating violence against or hatred of persons of other beliefs, actions which few if any of these schools engage in. Regarding the specific mention of intolerance, I wonder if Nichiren schools' intolerance is of such a degree that it requires mention without further qualification: If, by intolerance, the schools' claim to being the only correct religion is meant, the word is accurate; however, this begs the question of whether they are any more "intolerant" than established Judeo-Christian schools in a manner making the attributes worthy of specific mention—i.e., is this an attribute not to be expected to some degree of any religion? Further, in current-day discourse, intolerant can be strongly POV when applied too generally (as I believe it is here).  The aggressive/harassing nature of some Nichiren schools should be addressed separately under the headings or articles covering those schools that engage in such behaviour, not in a generalized introductory outline.  Please note that the link added to evangelistic pipes to a disambiguation page with links to forms of Christian evangelism, and therefore is more likely to confuse readers than give them an explanation of evangelistic as used here; I have removed it for this reason.  In future, please adhere to Wikipedia conventions when making changes and comments. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The lack of tolerance ought to be compared to other *Buddhist* branches. Doing so reveals at least some of the Nichiren branches to be among the least tolerant of other forms of Buddhism. I feel the movement is at risk for several logic fallacy errors not generally present in other forms of Buddhism. As I see them, they are:


 * A. "False Dichotomies, Appeal to Authority, 'Damning with Faint Praise' " This constellation runs like so:


 * 1. Nichiren studied all the materials he could locate of his day. Thus he became a widely read Buddhist scholar.
 * 2. He identified the Lotus sutra as his choice of "Capstone teaching".
 * 3. He (appears to have) advocated the teaching of the capstone sutra first without any of the context of any other materials.
 * 4. Because Nichiren was so learned, new members need not bother learning these other materials if they choose not to, and can rely on the assertion of authority that "their school is the most correct".
 * 5. While giving lip service to 'tolerance', by definition it carries the faint pitying air of "tolerating until you realize your foolishness and adjust your perspective".


 * B: "Superseding originial authority". Much like the tension point between Christianity and Judaism, Nichiren picks a sutra expounded by Gautama Buddha, *while discarding all his other teachings*. Thus, the key principle of adapting instruction has been replaced by "follow Nichiren's interpretation".


 * C: Temporal and Geographical problems. By accounts, Nichiren did a pretty good research job *for his day* ... but his day ended 750 years ago, dating approximately to when he finalized his basic concepts. Not only did he this miss any subsequent developments in his own country, but he missed rich lineage traditions in several other countries. However, because the precepts of the school are "locked" and not Living-Tradition-Fluid like many other major schools, modern aherents tend not to be willing to overhaul the school.


 * The levels of tolerance vary heavily by member. Some make real efforts to overcome this textual weakness, others "enjoy" being part of "the correct school". TaoPhoenix (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Early doubts about the article
Could someone sheds some lights on the reasons from both parties of the split between Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism and Sōka Gakkai International? Kt2


 * As I understand it, 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)

-- The above statements about the essences of Nichiren Buddhism are which sects did what is a partial explanation; it is clear that it was composed respectfully by someone sympathetic to a particular sect, SGI. SGI has a powerful voice around and world and has historically represented Nichiren Buddhism to important world leaders who sought it's understanding. There are at least 2 other schools of Nichiren Buddhism: Nichiren Shu and Nichiren ShoShu. These sects warn of SGI (but do not prohibit) it's practice; many feel that SGI inherently contains certain personality-cult rituals, and too frequently worship President Ikeda (the current leader of SGI) along with Nichiren and Shakyamuni Buddha. Nichiren himself has said that he was not a Buddha, but an incarnation of Jogyo Bodhisattva. The path of the Lotus Sutra is the path of the Bodhisattva -- one who delays their own enlightenment until all other sentient beings in the universe have been saved from suffering. Schools like Nichiren Shu do not believe that the priest should not be worshiped, nor the president, only the Dharma, the Wonderful Flower of the Lotus Teaching. Several western nations have placed SGI on their respective "Cult watch" lists, and in extreme cases family members have written letters to their governments for assistance in getting their relative de-brainwashed. This is only in extreme cases with several exigent circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalchalk (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From my view point SGI was once a part of Nichiren ShoShu. They eventually started to split for the reasons stated above.  Soka Gakkai believed that individuals held their enlightenment/salvation in their own hands.  The Priesthood disagreed greatly.  This was the initial wedge that eventually led to a split in the organization.  Soka Gakkai still holds the founders of Nichiren ShoShu in highest regard, and venerates Nikko Shonen.  To Soka Gakkai he is second only to Nichiren himself.


 * The problems are much more current. The things that cause the most bad blood between the organizations now are events that took place after the split.  Soka Gakkai was a massive generator of funds for Nichiren ShoShu.  They built temples, and learning centers. All the things they do for Soka Gakkai and SGI now, they did for Nichiren ShoShu first.  They served loyally, and then were demonized by the priesthood because they were seen as a threat to their power.  In some cases, the temples built by Soka Gakkai were torn down and their existence denied.  For purposes of complete transparency, I am currently a practitioner of Soka Gakkai.  I recognize that this means that most of my knowledge of the situation comes from one side of the story.  Being somewhat new to the organization I can still look at things in a somewhat detached manner.  I think that it is possible that the two organizations could come back together in the future, but it will probably not be until those who were directly involved in the split on both sides have passed away. Emry (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tendai & Nichiren
It would be helpful if the article clarified this relationship a little. Knowing very little about the whole thing, it isn't clear to me why Nichiren Buddhism is considered distinct from Tendai given that both are focuses on the Lotus Sutra.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, they are distinct schools because Nichiren Buddhist chant the daimoku as their primary practice, whereas Tendai followers don't. And, Nichiren Buddhists revere the Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren, whereas Tendai don't. That's the main difference I can think of. Apart from that, they are quite similar, from Nichiren's writings, Nichiren regarded Tiantai as a mentor. - Stephen (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism and Mahayana Teachings
The difference between Nichiren's Buddhism and Mahayana Teachings is an important subject which deserves mentioning in the article. The main differences between the mainstream "Traditional" Buddhism and Nichiren's- is now encapsulated in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nichiren Buddhism (日蓮系諸宗派: Nichiren-kei sho shūha) is a branch of Mahāyāna Buddhism based on the teachings of the 13th century Japanese monk Nichiren (1222–1282). Nichiren Buddhism is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism - all is said. This section is quite unecessary - okay in the next raiting this article might end up with a D-rating.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What you mentioned about the initial definition of Nichiren Buddhism is correct as an introduction. The section about Nichiren & Mahayana is not a definition but a major subject of how Nichiren Buddhism is located within various Mahayana schools, what Nichiren Teachings share or not share with Mahayana and what are the new concepts in Buddhism. In other words: the fact that some of the Mahayana teachings ARE NOT SHARED with Nichiren Buddhism - is a crucial matter. A school that is described in the definition as being under the umbrella of Mahayana BUT does not share basic teachings with Mahayana - this presents a strong enquiry that requires examination.

Many schools have differing teachings but the section here is not about minor issues or rituals, it is about the life & death or the survival of Buddhism in the future. While Mahayana schools consider Buddhism in general as in the phase of decline and desintigration awaiting a Future Buddha, Nichiren Buddhism teaches quiet the opposite (the flourishing and spread of Buddhism and the redundancy of the concept of Future Buddha). These are substantial matters, not to add also the Object of Devotion in Buddhism and other principles. As for the calssification ABCDE...the classification is an opinion of the classifier. Wikipedia is about presenting impartial facts supported by references, and degrading clasification can be challenged. Time will tell.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you and do as you please … but the article becomes harder to read. Its beyond what an encyclopedia can do as you are trying to bring in too many aspects, that I am not even sure all schools of Nichiren-Buddhism would subscribe to as you seem to generalize your personal belief, but you are talking about Nichiren-Buddhism as a whole. Nevertheless you blow the article up … anyone using the wiki will wants some key facts. I will not argue with you as I have no time for edit-wars here anyway. Nichiren-Buddhism is a mine field. Personally I would strip the article of f any dogmatic issues and rather leave references to respective schools. Problem is that basically any Nichiren-School will believe that they act according to Nichirens intent.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I read your comment. You'd agree that the article cannot be informative if it was superficial and limited in presentation about what Nichiren Buddhism really is: in light of the general category of Mahayana. That simple. To present this important matter in just few lines is a concise and neat - and necessary - inclusion. As for what you said about each school of Nichiren Buddhism having own interpretation, this is true but they all agree on basic facts which are mentioned in the article (such as declaring the Daimoku at the age of 32, inscribing the first Gohonzon at the age of 51...etc...) No additional - or sectarian - interpretation was included in the section I added. Some of my references related to D.J.Stone, who is an impartial and well known scholar on japanese Mahayana.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification about References in the article
As Wikipedia requires, each article should be supported by citations, quotes and references. While the current subject is about Nichiren Buddhism, it is only normal to expect Nichiren's own words to be quoted and his teachings mentioned with a referrence to his own writings. Nichiren's writings belong to all Nichiren schools. The fact that these writings were published and made available online by SGI may give a wrong impression that the number of times SGI sources are mentioned in the article are excessive. But these references and quotes do not belong to "SGI literature" - simply because these quotes and references have been generated by Nichiren more than 750 years before the SGI emerged. All other schools are welcome to put their quotes and references on Nichiren's teachings. The Wikipedia offers a platform of shared knowledge, not sectarian competition. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
Best to delete following paragraphs First of all its hard to believe that there is really a common doctrine to all schools of Nichiren-Buddhism … they all chant the (O)daimoku and thats about it – if one is honest.
 * Doctrine and practices
 * Nichiren's Teachings and Mahayana Buddhism
 * Nichiren's Doctrine

Nichiren left writings behind and yet again thats the extent to what all in Nichiren-Buddhism would agree to … which one are regarded authentic … how to interpret and translate them is where opinions are various.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nichiren's writings
 * Nichiren's Major Writings


 * I agree that the 3 sections of Nichiren's writings, Major Writings Doctrine and Practices should be deleted to avoid sectarian controcersy. But it is simply not wise nor acceptable for an article on Nichiren Buddhism to avoid mentioning Nichiren's Teachings. An atricle which has no idea of what are Nichiren Buddhist teaching should have another name than Nichiren Buddhism. It is imparative that there would be a mention on what teachings Nichiren introduced to deserve a school by his name. Nichiren Tecahings or Doctrines (daimoku, Gohonzon, 3 Proofs)- these are acknolwedged BY ALL SCHOOLS. Does Nichiren Buddhism belongs to Mahayana and still is not a mainstream Mahayana? Yes, and this extremely important matter should NOT BE HIDDEN. I find it destructive to Wikipedia article to delete informative, refreenced and important substance that makes the weight and sense of the whole article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * well ist part of mahayana full stop I see no reason why its then more execeptional than any other school within mahayana ... ther are some scholls in buddhism who dispute the whole hinayana, mahayana, diamond issue full stop ... explainig why you think nichiren-buddhism is outstanding is yet partial. are you sure ALL scholls can agree on that? nichiren-buddhism is quite diverse.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Clean up and re-organising sections
As discussed earlier, the messy article had to have a clean up. The "Intro" is now made readable and simple after deleting lot of irrelevant materials (such as Nichiren's opposition to Ritsu and Zen etc... - a non scholastic approach in writing Introduction to the subject). There was a section about "Doctrines" but which explained basically Tendai doctrines, and while Nichiren Buddhism is based on the Lotus Sutra and has reference to various Tendai teachings, it developed its own doctrines and practice. The article is not about explaining Tendai's school and which Nichiren did not follow, as Dr. J. Stone mentuions). In any case the information about Nichiren's basic doctrines followed in another section : Essential Doctrines (acknowledged by all schools of Nichiren Buddhism).

The section : Nichiren Teachings and Mahayana Buddhism is very important because the introduction defines Nichiren Buddhism as a branch of Mahayana, and this begs the question: what is then the relationship between the two.

Another change I made was deleting a text which was included in "Nichiren's Essential Doctrines", and which was about "Precepts": Nichiren did not introduce the doctrine of Precepts (which is held in both Threvada and Mahayana before Nichiren appeared) so it was wrong to include it as a Nichiren's Doctrine! That part had to be deleted - keeping the main principles Nichiren introduced clear and simple. It is logical to structure the article consistently with its title: Nichiren Buddhism, which requires a concise explanation : what are these Nichiren Doctrines (which are common to all schools). This was mentioned in Section: Essential Doctrines.

Finally, I changed the location of "Schools" to the last part of the article, because it was very messy to put a long list of Schools at the beginning of the article (even before sections on Nichiren's teachings!).

As for the differences between schools,the article names the various schools of Nichiren Buddhism, and anyone interested in further info can click on the school they want, without the need to make the article too messy and too controversial in making comparison between schools.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work - I think this version is much clearer and cleaner. I have removed the "controversial" tag. What could perhaps be useful would be a short discussion of the main differences between schools, however this would perhaps be likely to degrade into POV disputes. Mcewan (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though you did indeed clear up the article you also dropped the fact that Nichirens teachings were often referred to by Nationalists. We did “talk” about that in earlier discussion, it does not mean however that Nichiren WAS a nationalist. To drop the fact however would mean to put a blind eye to historic facts – as mentioned in literature. Some of those who did so where for instance self-declared priests of Nichiren-Buddhism, never the less his teachings were used in such a context. Not mentioning the fact won't make the facts go away though … For instance Martin Luther believed in the usefulness of witch-hunts and in his work one can find clear anti-Semitic remarks, which found fertile grounds with the Nazis. Nobody in their right mind would however declare Lutherans of today being anti-Semitic – but still its in his works. So without mentioning those issues the article will be not unbiased and as a matter of fact white-washed. I know you are an SGI-member, but still those issues form an integral part of the history of Nichiren-Buddhism. One could also find examples in Shinto. State-Shinto was used by Japanese Nationalist and still is, as some still refer to Nichiren within Japanese Buddhism. This however does not make any believer in Shinto a Nationalist – just as State-Shinto only reflects a part of Shinto. I believe there some articles in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies on the issue.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Catflap, I had the opportunity to carefully read Wikipedia page: talk page guidelines and I recommend it to you. Please read the guidlines.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding new sections on Intolerance, Criticism and Non-Violence
I have added to the article 3 new sections: first on the lack of tolerance towards Nichiren Buddhism, another on Nichirens sharp criticism of other schools of Buddhism, and finally about the character of non-violence in Nichiren Buddhism and focus on dialogue. Comments welcome to improve the article. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * good grief your taking 13th century incidents to say other schools ARE intolerant of Nichiren-Buddhim??? Although stated attacks took place the heading your putting them under is a bit weak --Catflap08 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sections needing attention
The following section are in dire need for neutral attention as being too specific to a somewhat general article. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nichiren's Teachings and Mahayana Buddhism
 * Nichiren's Essential Doctrines
 * Intolerance towards Nichiren Buddhism
 * Nichiren criticism of other schools
 * Non-Violence in Nichiren Buddhism


 * The mentioned sections are utterly essential to the article on Nichiren Buddhism. They are general and encompassing facts supported by variety of reliable sources. If there is a need for improvement please suggest: what is the area of suggestion for improvement and why. Articles are to expand and be enriched. In the future another section will be added as some editors asked for, which is the Similarities and Differences between various Nichiren schools. Nichiren Shu article has such a section on Similarities and Differences. It is the benefit of readers to distinguish why there are 20 or so Nichiren schools, or at least how to group them in major trends whether historical or evolving. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles should be expanded an enriched – right. But repeating information already present in other articles is not necessary either. Furthermore this article is a general article. The issue on Mahayana Buddhism has already been discussed in the talk page of the article on Nichiren as well as Nichiren's essential doctrine. Appart form the veneration of the Lotos Sutra and Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo there isn't much more that ALL schools of Nichiren Buddhims could agree on – so editors before your had their reason to outline the basic issues only in common. Again what your organisation believes to be essential in the teachings of Nichiren should be mentioned there. I guess you should be knowledgeable on that as those are issues missing in the article on SGI.
 * The issue on intolerance of other schools is at this point unsound as at this point one could quite rightfully enter a section of Nichren's intolerance towards other schools – both points of view however would not fit into this article as it is about Nichiren Buddhism today … it is already mentioned in the introduction that Nichiren was critical of the then state supported schools. Even more this its a one sided description of the situation more than 700 years ago. The majority of today's schools within Nichiren Buddhism do practice a dialogue with other Buddhist schools, simply on a work base so to speak. They do do not make a great issue of it as it is simply normal behaviour. They respect each others religious differences and since more that 700 years have gone by Nichiren Buddhism is an integral part of established Japanese Buddhism. Again if your organisation holds different or additional views enter them within the respective article. To be more specific if your organisation has the same sentiments against other Buddhist traditions as Nichiren had in his days then this is a information that should be worthwhile mentioning in the article on SGI. At present your edits make it look as Nichiren Buddhism TODAY as a whole is in conflict with other Buddhist traditions and this is simply untrue.
 * The issue of Non-Violence is simply an overreaction by you when it comes to the issue of Nationalism. Most of the traditions within Nichiren Buddhism just as as Buddhism in general do not support violence. It is however a fact that Nichiren Buddhism got a reputation of being nationalistic as some individuals based their nationalistic views on Nichiren. The 15th of May incident is a prime example of that as a self declared Nichiren Priest stood in the centre of attention of that. So a look into the history books helps. It does not mean Nichiren Buddhism is Nationalistic but since Nichiren Buddhism is the first indigenous school of Japanese Buddhism and that some refer to Nichiren as Japanese Buddha is an explanation why those accusations came about … as Nichiren Buddhism is strongly  linked to Tendai the issue to which degree Nichiren Buddhism could be asserted as being the first indigenous form of Japanese Buddhism can be disputed anyway.  Your views are by no means “wrong” but you mention them in the wrong articles. Internal links to other schools within Nichiren Buddhism are and have been present before your edits. Your edits have been far too bold to be able to speak for Nichiren Buddhism as a whole or indeed on Nichiren. You may have a point when it comes to the views held within your organisation, but when you enter them in articles which are of general issues you have to be firm also in other schools views. Giving the number of Nichiren Schools there actually was some sort of thought behind why the articles in question were relatively compact. Again in the article on SGI you just may enter all those issues you have mentioned. Since you were the one who entered the sections I'd rather would like to see YOU melting everything down again, the average reader knows quite well what the letters in blue mean and I advise you to bring those issues into the article on SGI.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The information included in the section you mentioned - is true and supported by reliable sources. Next week I will edit whatever needed to make the article better. Deleting important information is not on. If you have alternative sources, or additions you want to make, you are most welcome. Please be concise as historical lectures are not the subject of this page, which soon will be monitored by a third editor.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I shall hope the third editor brings some experience in editing in Wikipedia. Nobody said the information is wrong, but that it seems to be in the wrong article. The article on SGI still lacks this information. Your comment on history displays a certain degree of ignorance, as historic developments are key issues to understand why Nichiren Buddhism looks the way it does TODAY.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Structure, Content and one sided argument
Please take note of the ongoing dicussion in 'sections needing attention' more neutral input would at this point be welcomed.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would help a lot if this were presented as a specific question, or group of specific questions, which could receive fairly definite responses, rather than as an open-ended request for input. What are the specific concerns regarding structure and content that the RfC wants to address, and are there any defined proposals as to how they would be addressed? John Carter (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
The article on Nichiren Buddhism is supposed to give essential information about Nichiren’s teachings (accepted by all related schools), as well as historical facts associated with the practice. If this perspective is meaningful, then we have the following 5 questionsabout the article's contents:

/1/ Should the article about Nichiren Buddhism contain information about Nichiren’s essential doctrines? (My comment: Yes, but with more diversity of sources).

/2/ Should the article about Nichiren Buddhism contain information about the main difference between this Buddhism and the branch it developed from: Mahayana Buddhism? (My comment: yes, but it can be incorporated in the previously mentioned section (on its essential teachings).

/3/ Should an article about Nichiren Buddhism contain reference to historical facts of opposition, intolerance and even violence against its teachings, temples, and practitioners? (My comment: an article about Christianity which evades mentioning the historical truth about opposition, intolerance and violence against early christians practitioners can be considered as either biased and hiding the truth - or just poor and lacking worth and depth).

/4/ Should an article about Nichiren Buddhism refer to how Nichiren criticized other groups of Buddhism? (My comment: yes, but this may be incorporated in the section about Nichiren & Mahayana Buddhism).

/5/ Should an article about Nichiren Buddhism contain its doctrine of world-peace and non-violence in resolving disputes? (My comment: yes, it is a vital matter to present Nichiren Buddhism views about daily, social and world problems and what solutions are offered in its doctrine to this important matter affecting all humanity. It would be a meaningless article about Gandhi to disregard mentioning his teaching on non-violence, and it would be a meaningless article to avoid mentioning what is Nichiren Buddhism teaching about non-violence).

One last thing about "incorporating and including" (of information from one section to another): sometimes it is good for clarity to have separate small sections than to put many things in a lengthy and condensed section. Better for the eyes and mind to have specifics and clarity. Thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Safwan the problem starts right in the first sentence … Nichiren Buddhism is NOT a Buddhist school – its a general description of schools which base their teachings on Nichiren. Nichiren never founded a school, he founded temples. Distinct Nichiren Schools were founded after his death. For most of the times the term used describing Nichiren Buddhism was 'Hokke Shu' it wasn't until the 19th century that for instance Nichiren Shu was formally founded, the Nichiren Shohsu was founded in the earyl 20th century. So what Nichirens basic doctrines are should be desribed in the articles of the respective schools. Also there just can not be a doctrine of world-peace as Nichiren Buddhism (not being a single school) has no fixed doctrine. All the issues on persecutions in Nichirens lifetime are an issue of his liftetime. The Nichiren Schools that had to undergo the most severe persecutions throughout the centuries were the ones of the Fuju-Fuse, which today are only of marginal importance as they were in opposition to any government. Nobody says those issues you entered are wrong but how can they be labelled a doctrine of a school that simply does not exist. Those views are much more an interpretation (i.e. boddhisatwa as world citizen) that originate form a school WITHIN Nichiren Buddhism. Again if its a doctrine held true and practised within your organisation why is it not mentioned there?--Catflap08 (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not start with problems but with solutions.
 * /A/ as far as the name is concerned: Nichiren Buddhism is a name given to the Buddhist teachings expounded by Nichiren and practiced by various schools, each according to is own interpretation. It is true that Nichiren did not found a sect of his own, he developed a new practce and has a distinguished set of teachings upon which all - I repeat : all the schools agree upon. Similarly: Jesus did not found a sect by expounded teachings of Christianity. We focus on what is common in Nichiren Buddhism: All schools agree on Nichiren's interpretation of the Lotus Sutra, the chanting of the Law and reverence to the Gohonzon. This is enough to put all Nichiren Buddhism practitioners under the same umbrella of Nichiren Buddhism. Other details in rituals or views are not essential - and in fact as you said - they can be put under each particular school's article. I see no problem here.


 * /B/ Followers of Nichiren Buddhsim during and after Nichiren's life suffered persecustion. This is a historical fact. You may think it is not important, I believe it is important and consistent with the truth. Any truthful article about Christianity would not hide the fact that early followers were persecuted - although it is not the case now. What is true and had a huge impact on the lives of uncounted number of followers - must not be avoided.


 * /C/ There are many passages in Nichiren's writings in which he refers to "all human beings" and to the "whole world" and that the Buddha nature is inherent in all people. All Buddhists in fact agree on that. An objection to mention this in the article may be reflecting partial knowledge on Buddhism. Wikipedia articles on Buddha nature and Buddhist Humanism and Humanistic Buddhism refre to this basic teaching of Buddhism, being the Buddha nature inherent in all people.


 * /D/ On the Wikipedia we are just editors concerned with presenting correct information within the given guidelines. Please refrain from inciting sectarian differences by words like: "your school"....Your judgement of what each school has achieved remains your personal view. Besides, to be precise and concise and help all editors - a set of specific questions or points was established. I think it is easier to focus on one question at a time and refer to them (for ex. as per: /1/, /2/...rather than answering all together in a mixed and unfocused way. We do not have to rush and we can expand a mood of copperation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the problems is the best way to create solutions, otherwise, what one winds up doing is just creating more problems. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Much would be gained if this article could be re-structured and edited as the one on Nichiren ... agin I leave this to the editor who made most of the recent changes.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Catflap above, I agree the problem starts right in the first sentence ... Nichiren Buddhism is NOT a Buddhist school – its a general description of schools which base their teachings on Nichiren. I was most surprised to see that Temples are actually listed in the article as Major Nichiren Buddhist schools'; I don't know of any other religious system that makes the same claims, that each temple or stupa or church is a distinct school of philosophy. (I'll leave the fundamentalist out of this.) Whiteguru (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Whiteguru

Personally I am just familiar with the major branches their head-temples and the major historic temples that mostly belong to Nichiren Shu. There are however, to my knowledge, quite small schools that centre around one temple only. The term “shu” refers to a school --- to what extent they are loosely affiliated I can not say. This underlines at any rate what I said about doctrine etc and so forth … the latest edits presume a doctrine where there simply can not be one. What can be identified in most schools is the veneration of the Lotos-Sutra, Namu myoho renge kyo and to most the gohonzon, and even in the last case the gohonzon can come in all shapes and sizes. I believe the article should focus on what lineages exist and rather some more historic background (on which I am working on). I hesitate to delete certain sections as an edit-war might brake out again though. Sections 2,3,5,6 and 7 are wrong placed in this article.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are at least a few articles in reference sources, like encyclopedias of various sorts, on the Highbeam Research site which deal with Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism. I could very easily forward them to anyone who gave me their e-mail addresses. I have always thought the most reasonable way to structure any encyclopedic article would be to basically look at the similar articles in other encyclopedias and basically more or less repeat what they say, barring occasional changes in either historical information, when new information is found, significant changes in structure, etc. But, in general, I tend to think that Catflap's position is the more tenable one here than that of Safwan. I would particularly question Safwan's statement about how religious articles need to include information about persecution. In some cases, when that persecution is one of the central issues of a group, yes, but, otherwise, that can and often is more or less a subtopic of the history of the group, and as such is more or less a third-level topic regarding a group, rather than a primary-level topic. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the some of the abonementioned points:
 * /a/ Nichiren Buddhism is an umbrella-name for the practice based on Nichiren’s teachings.  But this article does not seem to - initially when written - present the integral teachings and practice related to Nichiren. It is rather heavily influenced by sectarian and temples names, and who was first and how many temples-buildings one group has…. An article about Nichiren Buddhism should be about the Nichiren’s teachings of Buddhism (which are common to all who regard Nichiren as their teacher or founder).   But here we find focus on differences, on sects, schools, temples…


 * The absurdity of this sectarian spirit went as far as classifying sects as Traditional and NonTraditional (an objectionable judgmental classification based on an invented criterion), which makes an impartial reader rather laugh. Wouldn’t you laugh at someone saying :”I am traditional Christian, you know, and he is non-traditional Christian!” . This article can be meaningful if readers are offered a general scope of the teachings of Buddhism advocated by Nichiren, and which are common to all, let me repeat, to all Nichiren affiliations. This is not difficult to do.


 * /b/ How to call these “affiliations”, which are NichirenBuddhism-based? Neither the name “sect” nor “school” would be accurate to use. Let’s look at Tibetan Buddhism: it is not given the name of a school, it is rather a practice or teachings common to 4 major groups.


 * I suggest using the name “Nichiren groups” or “Nichiren affiliated groups”. The word Shu = School in Japanese, but in English the word “School of philosophy” - implies distinctiveness and even a separate identity and this understanding is not accurate here. Many of the mentioned schools (Shu) are almost identical in teachings and practice. SGI in particular rejects being named as a school or sect, it is a “Community of Believers”: Sangha - a “group of Nichiren followers” under the name SGI. Yes, there r “similarities and differences”, but this is found on their page.


 * /c/ Nichiren Buddhism gained its identity only by clarifying its distinction from other Mahayana based practices referred to as Zen, Shingon, Amida.... etc… For this reason Nichiren’s views/criticism of other Mahayana teachings is essential to mention as it is essential to mention the rejection and oppressive response practitioners met. These are historical facts, which accompanied NichirenBuddhism long after Nichiren’s death.


 * In today’s democratic societies Nichiren Buddhism is still subjected to rejection and suppression (to aversion and closed-doors attitude) even on this Wikipedia. I literally had to wage a war of inquiries and questions why my input on Buddha nature page (about Nichiren’s view/quote on it) was erased each time I presented it. Finally, I could place one sentence there - among a huge number of detailed text put by editors of other schools. It was this sectarian spirit that makes one sect-temple-school claim property and patent, even on Buddhanature! Let’s face it, the same opposition and intolerance today is also found in Mahayana participants position in Tricycle’s Buddhist magazine's discussions and who – generally- do not like to acknowledge Nichiren Buddhism. All these reactions are part and parcel of NichirenBuddhism’s reality. But there is also a point in how to deal with this in the article hers as suggested, and I'll combine the two sections of Criticism and Intolerance or Recation - to reflect these facts however in a better and concise impartial presentation.


 * Some editors - not liking something - quickly add the tag "the neutrality of this article is disputed" without giving reasons. If I would have put in this article on the external links: SGI website, SGI Australia, SGI UK, SGI USA, SGI Iceland, SGI South Africa, SGIwhatever, wouldn't that be biased? Why then we find here (reflecting the sectarian spirit of the article) at the external links: Nichien Shu, Nichiren Shu English, Nichiren Shu Italy, Nichiren Shu Uk and evem how Nichiren Shu views the split between Shoshu and SGI! This is not the spirit of Wikipedia nor this hidden enforcement of views belong to NichirenBuddhism article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism is not an umbrella name for a practice, but for schools that base their teachings on Nichiren. There is not even a universal practice amongst those schools let alone a doctrine so why tying to fit something into the article that does not exist? On top of that this is coming from someone who is a member of an organisation that does not even want to keep ties with other schools within Nichiren Buddhism The differentiation between traditional and non-traditional schools is that the traditional ones trace their origins directly to Nichiren and his disciples and non-traditional schools tend to be non-monastic and /or based on lay believers this differentiation is even present in Japan (see Japanese new religions). Certainly one can do the same differentiation in Christianity traditionally one would have Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants on one side on the other groups that developed from traditional Christian churches down to evangelical groups. And certainly there is a focus on sects, schools and groups to show how Nichiren Buddhism evolved over the centuries and how schools are related to each other. In this respect I would strongly protest not using the term “shu”. First of all the schools use that term themselves and it would be outrageous to use different standards here than anywhere else including other encyclopaedic works. So in your words the term “shu” is very much appropriate for most schools in Nichiren Buddhism have distinct teachings. What SGI likes to be called is their business; it does not affect this article. An impartial reader would also like to get the bare fatcts and as I said before any details on Nichirens teaching and how they are being interpreted should be left to the articles of specific schools … in the SGI article this is somehow missing. It may be due to the fact that there is no official stance on that. Nichiren Buddhism as such was defined as such later … in Nichirens days the government even offered to built a temple for him which he refused as he would have had to stop criticising the government and schools favoured by the government. In time though different lineages evolved around the historic temples from which again other forms of Nichiren Buddhism developed. Where is Nichiren Buddhism being persecuted today????????????????? There were indeed Nichire schools who were persecuted, as the Fuju Fuse, and having ones head chopped off I would call severe persecution. The section on the history of Nichiren Buddhism is in process of being written but will take some time to finish. This article should be as general and neutral on how Nichiren Buddhism developed and not to describe this how its schools developed would be ignorant.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am requesting all editors to seriously examine the abovementioned input by Catflap08.  I cannot prevent Catflap from embarrassing himself but I can help in asking him to respect Wikipedia guidelines and refrain from obsessive mention of ‘your SGI’ and  ‘my school’… a spirit of division and unhealthy atmosphere, which does not facilitate cooperation.  Sectarianism, looking for differences, and dividing people – this is characteristic of an approach of failure to focus on what is common among Nichiren Buddhists groups for the sake of an article about Nichiren Buddhism.


 * The issue of how to refer to the various temples/ schools/groups, was raised. I just made a suggestion. There is no need to erupt like volcano against a suggestion. Broadmindedness and flexible spirit reflect peace of mind and healthy attitude in viewing suggestions. Reasonable approach manifests in respecting the reality of existence of variety of views, without centering on own views as the one and only.It is meaningful to know that some groups refer to themselves as a “School” (but here we have many of the groups with “Shu” – implying  the existence of schools, which some see as a problem, while I am neutral in this area) . The truth is that all groups are Sangha, or Community of believers.


 * What would a Wikipedia reader of this article expect? A general trustworthy information about the common teachings and practice shared within the groups which follow Nichiren's teachings. If there is nothing in common between Nichiren groups, then there is no need for the article.


 * I am starting to doubt Catflaps ability to write about Nichiren Buddhism, because of his following divisive statement that "There is not even a universal practice amongst those schools let alone a doctrine ..". This statement reveals utter ignorance. I am asking now all Editors who are reading about this subject to ponder the ability of Catflap in writing about Nichiren Buddhism if he implies that in his opinion there is no common practice nor doctrine among Nichiren Buddhism related schools.


 * All - I repeat : All - Nichiren schools consider the chanting introduced by Nichiren as their essential practice. This is common in their practice. Most if not all also practice recitation of portions of the Lotus Sutra. They all share in revering the Gohonzon. They all acknowledge certain essential and undisputed writings of Nichiren in which he explained his teachings. Catflap’s statement of lack of common practice or teachings among Nichiren Buddhists reflect unstable understanding bouncing between: there is Nichiren Buddhism and there is no common Nichiren practice or doctrine of Nichiren Buddhism.


 * John suggested to look at how the subject is presented in a certain encyclopedia. This is a good suggestion, it can be beneficial. I don’t think that John had in mind that we “copy and paste” what other encyclopedias say about this subject (as this is not what Wikipedia is about).  I am pointing here to the issue of Catflaps’ mentioning of his gathering of information about the” History of Nichiren Buddhism”, which may come from sources which are based on copy and paste. This is because he implied unwillingness of mentioning the "Intolerance against Nichiren Buddhism".  It is part of Nichiren Buddhism history. To speak about history and to reject mentioning a fact of history while speaking about history is unreasonable.  Please view the many question marks  (the ????? etc…) Catflap has put to support his argument that because Nichiren Buddhism is not persecuted now, then there is no need to mention about the opersecution and intolerance. This is a self- contradicing thinking and it manifests instability in views, and it is even a tendency to hide the truth about crimes, murders, temple burning which followers of Nichiren Buddhism were subjected to in history. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the term doctrine. To state that there is a common doctrine within nichiren buddhims is absurd. the only simmilarities are the veneration or acknowledgement of Nichiren, the lotos sutra and even with the gohonzon diffreneces are getting vast. especially when leaving the three major branches aside. Besides saying ". I am asking now all Editors who are reading about this subject to ponder the ability of Catflap in writing about Nichiren Buddhism..." is an outrageous remark. --Catflap08 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC) And still in which societies is "Nichiren Buddhism ... still subjected to rejection and suppression"???--Catflap08 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article
I have took few steps to improve the article by deleting/re-writing/combining the sections which I introduced earlier aiming to have a coherent, clear and simple article. I deleted the section on Nichiren and Mahayana, and re-wroked the section on the basic teachings in Nichiren Buddhism, selecting variety of sources relating to various schools/groups, whatever you'd like to name them. These are firmly established teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, undeniably acknolwedged by all groups/schools. A little mention on different interpretation is also presented.

I think article's reader will be met with a clear and concise information - without complicated or boring dwelling on details, but which can be accessed if necessary from provided references or other links.

I also deleted both sections on "Criticism of other schools" and "Intolerance of other schools", however I combined parts of the important information about the progress of Nichiren Buddhism in society under a new title: "Reception of Nichiren Buddhism", a neutral title, which covers variety of views including non-Buddhist observers. Regards to all editors.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Equal approach and non-bias
Editors are requested to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality and balanced approach in presenting information. In my writing I included sources from Nichiren Shu, Shoshu, SGI, Hokkekempon and also independant scholars. I regarded all Nichiren communities/sects/schools - as equal. This is not met in some parts of the article and as an example please look at the LINKS at the bottom end and you'll find links to Nichren Shu websites trippled as Nichiren Shu English website, Nichiren Shu UK, Nichiren Shu Italy and Europe.... There is nothing wrong at all with this insertion of links, but a balance should be maintained with other websites, if they have any in English. I wonder whether a set of Engilsh speaking countries where SGI has its presence and activities should be mentioned in equal approach to presented links. But I have a suggestion (to avoid a lengthy list) that the LINKS should include only one English based weblink for each Nichiren school or community. I suggest removing links which are unrelated to English-speaking countries websites, because stuffing these links may show a tendency for propaganda, and please view Wikipedia: Manual of Stylr/Words to watch, on eliminating "bias falttering or endorsing particular point of view".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest who has more links than the other is in my eyes secondary. I find that approach rather childish, but that’s jut my opinion.
 * Far more important is to reduce redundant and dublicated information, at least that is he way issues like that are being dealt within other “wiki-languages”.
 * The The Nichiren Buddhist International Center homepage links Nichiren Shu Italy/Europe … the UK-link is not mentioned there – for what reason I do not know. Even though the Italian link is an excellent English site, the link could theoretically go, as in my mind the Nichiren Shu main page should be the starting point.
 * SGI’s main homepage basically links up to all its organisations and divisions anyway. I remember an article were once nearly all of SGI’s homepages were listed --- was quite a debate at the time.
 * Given the small number of external links it beats me a bit why it should be an issue here. The guiding motive is content of the site that is linked rather than head counts.
 * Also links in other languages should be more than welcomed especially if there is not enough English material. I would even encourage to insert the links of those schools not having any English site yet - as some out there are quite able to speak Japanese for instance.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just added some external sources missing :-) --Catflap08 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind about these links: instead of my suggestion to include only English websites, now I think it is even better to include variety of links from all over the world. This would convey the message that Nichiren Buddhism has now spread to many countries around the world and is not confined to local temples as was in the past. I added few SGI links as samples of world wide presence of Nichiren Buddhism - but there are as many as three times more links to what I added here, but for the time being - this is Ok.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Childish as I said and at least your fianlly open about it that you are using wikipedia to "convey a message" ... interesting stuff.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is proper to help some editors to rectify mistaken or twisted perception of my honest contribution. I explained that adding links from world wide Nichiren Buddhism sites - would convey the correct information that it is not confined to local temples or to Japan. The message that Nichiren Buddhism is a world wide phenomenon is an undeniable truth, and any self respecting encyclopedia should acknowledge this truth. It is a fact, and presenting this truth is what I meant.


 * In addition to SGI, there are various other respectworthy individuals from Nichiren Shu, Nichiren Shoshu and other affiliations, who are sincere, and who contribute to world wide presence of Nichiren Buddhism. I followed their websites and could learn from them as well. It is immature and emotionally unbalanced to make divisions and sectarian tension.


 * There is another issue with the world wide presence of Nichiren Buddhism: it is based on the Lotus Sutra, a universal message of peace and harmony with the universal Law. There is nothing Indian or Chinese in the Lotus Sutra nor Japanese. Editors in Wikipedia who view Nichiren Buddhism as "Japanese" are misunderstanding the concept of religion in general, and the message of planetary citizenship of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Nichiren did not refer to the Boddhisattva of Japan, but to the Lotus Sutra's Boddhisattvas of the Earth, the Planet - and his concern for humanity is evident in various statements. Of course, while he was living in a "burning house" of his immediate environment in Japan, he had to address that situation and he cared about his surroundings with compassion, but this compassion is not restricted to the Japanese. It would have been non-Buddhist and unrealistic if Nichiren would have ignored his country's disasterous situation -so he had to speak about Japan and any intelligent person would also understands that his concern was about humanity. That's why Nichiren Buddhism is a teaching of humanism and it has for this reason spread to all races and ethnic backgrounds. The links I added are in fact a presentation (and a sample of) the international character of Nichiren Buddhism.


 * Yet we find in Wikipedia self-appointed philosophers who argue that Christianity - for example - is Italian, Islam is Arabic, Nichiren Buddhism is Japanese, and Zen is Chinese. I cannot prevent others from embarrassing themselves through revealing their level of scholastic understanding, but I can help, perhaps, in presenting a wider angle perspectives, far beyond the childish categorising of religions through the limitation of ethnicity or race.02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwanZabalawi (talk • contribs)

Safwan, an encyclopedia's purpose is by no means to convey messages on issues of belief. It describes, nothing more and nothing less. You seem quite preoccupied with issues on temples and so forth. If this, as many other issues you have mentioned, is so fundamental to the organisation you seem to represent there is a huge gap in the SGI- article. For the most part if those temples would not have existed there would have been no teaching to be passed on … as a result not any worthwhile mentioning of Nichiren Buddhism. You keep on pushing issues in any other article that reflect, or seem to reflect, the official stance of your organisation – yet those issues aren't mentioned in the SGI-article at all. In the more than 700 years of Nichiren Buddhism some have died for their belief, some went to distant shores to propagate their beliefs even within the 12th century. There are nearly 40 schools, sects and organisations that base their beliefs on Nichirens teachings – it is not wikipedia's purpose to propagate those beliefs but to as objectively as possible to describe them. And if you like it or not Nichiren Buddhism from a scholastic point of view is in its origins very much Japanese – some however dispute even that as to Tendai. Some even go as far as to say that the (O)daimoku has already been practised before Nichiren. How and to which extent schools and organisations have translated this philosophy into today's world is an entirely different issue that is best described in the articles of respective groups as each have chosen different means to do so. You will again and again run into problems if you are unable to completely detach yourself from you faith and beliefs when you are ought to describe them here. May it be your faiths history, your practice or its impact – what it means to you is of no interest here. As sorry as I am to say that, but your comments and edits have proved so far many critics right. Nobody here doubts your passion, but personal beliefs are secondary here.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This Wikipedia Talk page, is NOT for "internet chat ".


 * There are other forums - such as Yahoo chat groups - for voicing personal judgments.


 * The obsessive - and repetative - usage of personal 'finger pointing words' : you, you seem.., your beliefs, yourself.., your organisation, your passion....shows inability to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and in my compassion I encourage editors, including myself, to develop broadmindedness to surpass sectarian division and personal emotionalism, which is are casuses leading to instability and sufferings.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the TALK page Safwan and its only about the content of your posts ... its not me who prvviously described editors as superficial mob. ... --Catflap08 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This talk page stands and a quintessential monument to the absurdity of Wikipedia, hard core Wikipedia editors,((AKA Wkinazis) and why Wikipedia, the English version in particular,is a joke in any educated venue. It is a classic example of why the validity of information by a consensus of those who's undistinguished lives allow them the leisure time to engage in such silliness, is a dismal failure and an assault on intellect. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is at best, a semi reliable source for the birth places of reality TV personalities, and not much else Cosand (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement: too many SGI country weblinks
this article has 12 weblinks to SGI official websites in different coutries (not counted: SGI USA and SGI International). I would propose to reduce this list or move most of the links to the article on SGI. (iceland ...) JimRenge (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you, but to be honest I have no intention to yet again engage in an edit-war. It appears that some sources or references are solely mentioned in order to mention a certain organisation often enough.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Downgrading Wikipedia by false references
Adding to External Links of this article this funny reference: http://www.nammyohorengekyo-onlinebuddhism.com/ can serve only in downgrading the credibility of Wikipedia.

Click on that link’s ‘Home’ or ‘About’ and you find a false claim that the name of NMRKOB literary means “ Value Creation Society”, and this is false. You may have fun reading further about this Online Buddhism advertising itself as linking “more than thousands people” !!! “more than thousands”- what "number' is that in reality? And even if “more than thousands” clicked on whatever website, that does not make it a reliable reference in an Encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is).

Further, this “Online Buddhism” is recommended by only one source: Hindustan Times,http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Wellness/Online-mahayagya-for-world-peace/Article1-906460.aspx specialized in Bollywood gossips, metabolism and heart attacks etc…

Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously by allowing such nonsense in its articles. Shamelessly, this “Online Buddhism” says that it was founded by Mr. Peters, just like that, Mr. Peters - who forgot his surname, but who came in touch with “Namiki from Nagazaki” – (who aparently converted him) and here was how this “Online Buddhism” started. I am leaving this desperately nonsensical link as it is - so that anyone who would like to check my comment can click on it. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits
Sections such as “Reception of Nichiren Buddhism” and “Non-violence in Nichiren Buddhism” deleted as those can be easier portrayed in the articles of respective lineages of Nichiren Buddhism. The Basic practice section was reduced since articles on those basic elements already exist. What importance is given to those elements is yet again already explained in the articles of respective lineages.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Catflap, while you are knowledgeable about Nichiren Buddhism and "respective lineages" and about the "Basic Practice", well, you'd agree that not all readers are even familiar with "lineages" or "the practice" - you know about!. An Encyclopedia is for all people to read. To tell readers however to go elsewhere, to articles of "respective lineages" to know about essential elements in Nichiren Buddhism, is not an informative editing. Editing should enrich the article not shrink it to a miserable skeleton lacking important, relevant and correct information.


 * While Nichiren Buddhism is a Mahayana tradition, it is vastly misconceived and some view it as not within Buddhism at all. Thus Perception of Nichiren Buddhism is utterly relevant to the subject. Deleting vital information that can clarify the subject through RS is not substantiated, and please - again - consider that your knowledge about the subject is not shared by all readers of the article, hence deleting what can give reliable information about the subject is not helpful for maintaining a reasonable body and structure of the article. For this reason I returned the missing text. Regards, SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are interwiki links. Written in blue. To define common grounds amongts those 30+ lineages is not possible in real life let alone in an article. And yes. If someone is interested they better read up on the scholls and lineages on which articles exist.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The section “Reception of Nichiren Buddhism” is written in a mode to feel pity for Nichren Buddhists. The tone amongst Buddhists at the time was harsh. One could easily cite Nichiren describing the heads of non-believers being split into several pieces. The historic events stated give no hint on how Nichiren Buddhims is being perceived. A short history is already part of the article. This is an article not a debate!--Catflap08 (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Major Nichiren Buddhist schools: categorization
Please don't change this list and list all schools together. Though I appreciate the notion that some people take offense at the "non-traditional" category, that is nonetheless a objective interpretation far-removed from the rationale for using the description here: There are real differences between the traditional schools and the non-traditional ones, particularly with reference to the role of clergy, but also regarding the time period in which the schools arose (most traditional Nichiren schools were formed between the 13th and 16th centuries, whereas most of the non-traditional ones were formed in the post-Meiji restoration era; i.e., after the mid-19th century).

As to Sōka Gakkai/SGI and the additional of a remark: The inclusion of Sōka Gakkai as a "lay organization" came at the insistence of SGI-member participants, who wanted SGI seen as neither a traditional nor a non-traditional school, but rather as a lay movement. Considering SGI's history, this is not factually incorrect; meanwhile, it is also true that SGI is largely seen in a different light. Since this situation is fact, stating it is neither POV nor somehow unfair to the other schools because they did not get similar attention—most of the other schools have nowhere near the societal influence of SGI, in Japan at least, either. If you nevertheless feel that the note is unfair to the other schools, please explain the benchmark being applied for measuring fairness. It is also worth pondering whom we want to be fair to here: the schools, or our readers.

On the matter of my demeaning of the schools by categorizing them as non-traditional: this, too, is a subjective interpretation. As explained above, no such intent exists—not to mention that the attribution to me, personally, is not appreciated. If you still feel that the categorization labels are inappropriate, then please suggest something better; e.g., "Pre-/Post-Meiji schools," "Schools founded in the nnth century," etc. In other words, don't just criticize others' work, contribute too. Thanks, and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I renamed "non-traditional" opting for "recent" which I feel is less pejorative and far less subjective. The schools listed are recent developments in Buddhism but nearly all of them would take offense to "non-traditional" as many trace their most basic practices to the teachings of Nichiren. Most scholars of Japanese religion, while perhaps taking issue with the tenets of more recent schools, would not be so bold as to declare their core teachings "non-traditional." The argument above seems to ignore the concept of "branches" in Buddhism, instead opting to use the term "formed" whereas most of the schools listed originated within schools termed "traditional." I do hope that my comments and edits mentioned here are viewed as contributions and not as criticism as that is the spirit in which they are intended. Nickevant (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Best to delete following paragraphs First of all its hard to believe that there is really a common doctrine to all schools of Nichiren-Buddhism … they all chant the (O)daimoku and thats about it – if one is honest.
 * Doctrine and practices
 * Nichiren's Teachings and Mahayana Buddhism
 * Nichiren's Doctrine

Nichiren left writings behind and yet again thats the extent to what all in Nichiren-Buddhism would agree to … which one are regarded authentic … how to interpret and translate them is where opinions are various. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nichiren's writings
 * Nichiren's Major Writings

I agree with Catflap08 regarding the first three points above, however, regarding Nichiren's writings there is very little disagreement about what Nichiren wrote and the history is quite well documented. Nickevant (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not correct Nickevant. There is much disagreement about what Nichiren wrote: http://www.princeton.edu/~jstone/Dissertation/Some%20Disputed%20Writings%20in%20the%20Nichiren%20Corpus%20Textual,%20Herme.pdf and http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2684 shed light on the matter of what Nichiren wrote. As far as the matter of the history, the Nichiren Shu's and the Fuji School's historical accounts differ in several significant details: Those relating to the inscription or non-inscription of the DaiGohonzon; the choosing of one or six successor[s]; and the history surrounding the early years of the Nichiren "sect" such as the causes surrounding Nikko's departure from Minobu and the "burning" of Gosho. Also, there are the legends surrounding the Daishonin's life such as the legend surrounding Nichiren's birth, the legend of the cormorant fishermen, the legend of the white monkey who led Nichiren away from his hut at Matsubagayatsu, and the legend of the white dog who saved Nichiren from being poisoned which are not so well documented. The dates of various writings are disputed. Mark R. Rogow 21 July 2014

Identical pages under two articles
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.

This is the result of an abusive edit. Nichiren Buddhism encompasses many schools, not just Nichiren Shoshu.

- Well, Can we do something???? The last long version (can't judge its quality) was 5:19 nov. 1 2002.

kh7 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

- I believe I have addressed the concerns outlined above for both articles. When I have time, I will move some of the information in these two articles to the bibliographical one or a new one on Nichiren's writings. Jim_Lockhart 06:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism is the larger article which encompasses Nichiren Shoshu (a single denomination) they should definitely be separate articles. Nickevant (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Article not about any specific group
Please do not delete or overwrite material in this article just because is does not fit the interpretation of your group (school, sect, etc.)! This article is not about any one group, nor is it intended to represent the views of any particular one. If you want to write about what your group—such as SGI, the one whose members seem to most frequently make changes to please themselves—does or does not do, then do it in articles about that group: This article already advises readers to look for group-specific information under the articles on their favorite groups. That should be enough! Jim_Lockhart 1 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem you may be having is that by the very act of writing an article that has confused and merged different beliefs and practices into one seeming whole, without clearly or fairly distinguishing between them, the author invites correction. Not to mention, at times, there is a decided sense of contempt and superiority in the author's attitude.


 * It is as if one were to try to convey the whole of Christianity by describing it, say, as "a religion steeped in ritual, its members having a a cult like attachment to a figure head called the Pope. Christianity and the Pope promote global domination by the forced conversion of entire nations to their religion, using coercian and force to do so, in a process called missionary work, also known as prostelitizing, and by having its members go door to door with its religious magazine. The magazine, the Watchtower, is generally considered Christian propoganda used to try to break people of their beliefs and convince them of the truth of Christianity" In this statement, one would be guilty of combining various forms of Christianity, elements of which are strictly Catholic, other elements that may be more closely attributed to say Protestant, Presbyterian, or Jehovah's Witness -- and through it all runs a grand "near truth", but it is unfair, lacking in context, and utterly superior and a contemptuous judgement on the whole. This kind of thing has no place in an encyclopedia of any kind. Ruby --151.198.99.71 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I do not see where this article was "mixing" anything without mentioning distinctions, so the comparison given above is untenable. I think part of my problem is people changing everything they don't like in the articles, often replacing fact with fiction in the process. Given the sources they cite and the information they present, it is not difficult to imagine why they are doing what they are doing. It is also impossible to prove any relationships or to disprove much of what they write, but that doesn't not automatically mean that suspicions are wrong or their story is right. Best, Jim_Lockhart 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The updated article is much better, thank you. Kudos to the author.


 * As to your commentary above:
 * Yes I do have a right to my opinion, as do you. But an encyclopediac article is not the place for them. I cannot speak for others who may have made edits that you didn't like, but I assure you, my corrections were an attempt to provide balance, and clarity, and my sources were authoritative and impeccable. I would expect an encyclopedic article to use sources that either covered the entire subject, including a comparitive of all various schools, or an equal representation of sources from all schools. For example, if you notice, most sources that are cited n this article came from one place - Nichiren Shoshu. Yet there is a dictionary of Buddhism at SGI as well. And many other dicitionaries of Buddhism that represent no single order. If you are going to use one,it is only fair to include the other as well. OR better, Use one that is all inclusive.


 * Beyond that, I find it unfortunate that you seem unable to divorce your personal emotion from the task at hand, for example you say:

"'I think part of my problem is people changing everything they don't like in the articles, often replacing fact with fiction in the process. Given the sources they cite and the information they present, it is not difficult to imagine why they are doing what they are doing.'"


 * Who and what are you talking about? It sounds like you are accusing someone of something. Who are you accusing? What are you accusing them of? Why are you so certain that they "change things" because the "don't like" it? What are you trying to say here? And if I am not mistaken, anyone is free to contribute to this work.


 * It is obvious that you are very suspicious. But that doesn't mean that your "story" is right either (to coin a phrase...).


 * Rest assured, I am a librarian, and my sole motivation is to play my part in the amazing experiment that is the Wikipedia.You will find me elsewhere in Wikipedia (and other online services) wherever I find such fault as was found here.


 * I love the idea of Wikipedia, as an information person - but I am wary of, aware of, and critical of, the tendency of people to take everything from the internet as Truth. Perhaps worse is when someone takes a forum like this, and is irresponsible in what they write. Innacuracies are bad, but unfair personal judgements and attacks, un-challenged bias, confusion of facts, poor sourcing, etc., have no place in an encyclopedia. Even - or perhaps especially -- this one.


 * BTW - Here are a few sources which are of the type I would expect to see cited (along with those you already selected) in an article of this type:


 * A Buddhist Kaleidoscope: Essays on the Lotus Sutra by Gene Reeves
 * Engaged Buddhism in the West by Christopher S. Queen
 * The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion Shambala, Boston (excerpt in link - print source is more thorough)

I don't mean to be argumentive, but I'd like to clarify a few things.

The first three references cited are at the end of the article SGI/Sōka Gakkai sources, not Nichiren Shoshu; and the very first one is the dictionary published by SGI that you recommend be used. (Don't be fooled by the name of the publisher, Nichiren Shoshu International Center—NSIC is not affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu itself, but was an SGI-run organization; use of the name has been discontinued.)

I have used Nichiren Shoshu sources for portions of the article that I wrote (I didn't write the whole thing, I only edited the whole thing) because those are the ones I have ready access to. I would hope that persons with initimate knowledge of the other schools would write about them, though I think that information on (or arguments for or against) one or another particular school should be presented in other, discrete articles on those schools, since this one is meant to address the commonalities of all the schools.

Re My Problem: What I object to is people who change material, especially without reading the whole article to see whether the information they are introducing is already present. This is different from what you think "part of my problem" is, which is this: I have experienced numerous times, in all the articles I have worked about this and related subjects, people's "editting" by adding insulting comments, changing the phrasing into charged language, or even just deleting the whole article. None of the people doing this sort of thing have a user name—just an IP address—and if one traces their editing activities, their charges rarely go beyond similar vandalism. This you could easilly learn by tracing the article's edit history—something I often do when working on articles of any kind. The exercise can be very informative.

Btw, you claim your sources are authoritative and impeccable, yet you cite none of them; you also claim I will be able to find you elsewhere on Wikipedia and the Internet, yet you netiher identify yourself nor say what I should look for to find your stuff. Fwiw, I always check the edit history of other contributors before I start to work an article. Some have put a lot of work into them, and some are obvious very knowledgable and just need an editor. When people are committed to Wikipedia, I think they join up, get a user name, and engage positively with other contributors.

As for the sources you would "expect" to see, why should I trust your judgment any more than my own on sources? (Some of which are also the articles on Nichren and the various Nichiren schools in the Japanese Wikipedia.) I have had intimate knowledge of Nichiren Buddhism for over 30 years and have studied it from several different angles, even reading much doctrinal material in the original. I can assure you that general references on the subject—even Encyclopedia Brittanica—are not always accurate about the subject, specifically because they are general and their authors, not familiar enough with some of the intricacies. For example, they often mistakenly assume that a given term as used in School A means exactly the same thing in School B, when it often doesn't. An example in Nichiren Buddhism is the significance of daimoku or o-daimoku, which differs among the schools; such nuanced differences are even more pronounced when the subject is Buddhist terms shared by most of the major Buddhist sects in Japan. Yet authors of generalized works usually do not address such distinctions. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that authors can and do address them.

Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This entire section of the talk page seems to be unnecessarily argumentative and lacking in foundation on both sides. Recommend deletion? Nickevant (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)