A Byrd's Eye View

On Tone

The other day, in a discussion with one of my SGI leaders, she encouraged me to consider a couple of things:

1. What it is that I want to accomplish with my blog, and

2. Whether my tone is helping me accomplish it.

If I have this wrong, I hope she will write in and correct me.

After yesterday's "year-end round-up" entry, I went back and counted the number of blog entries where I had been specifically discussing SGI-USA policy, doctrine, or activities. I counted 33 out of 101. Of course, there were other entries where I made a passing reference to the Gakkai, and I did not count entries where I discussed Buddhism or Buddhist activities outside the purview of the SGI (i.e., my visits to Brad Warner's zendo in Santa Monica, my interfaith visit to speak to a synagogue youth group, or the Gathering of Friends in Granada Hills). These 33 entries were pretty varied in content, ranging from a warm agreement with a World Tribune article, to a sharp rebuke of the SGI's "chant to close the Nichiren Shoshu temples" campaign last December.

So, I have given the question of tone some thought over the past few days, and I am curious to know what you all here think about the issue of tone in writing about Buddhism.

Our first dilemma in approaching this issue as Nichiren Buddhists is, of course, that Nichiren himself had a pretty confrontative and combative approach to writing about Buddhism. I don't care for this, myself, and I discussed it in my entry entitled "The Nichiren Virus":

http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/byrd/archives/001816.html

I'm glad the issue of tone has been raised. Honestly, I don't think I'm too bad of an offender, in that regard. At least not by Western standards. And Westerners are, after all, my primary audience. If you, my readers, feel otherwise, I am happy to hear your comments in this regard. I promise I won't bite.

I probably sound a bit too confident sometimes, particularly when I'm disagreeing with the SGI's approach to Nichiren Buddhist history or its approach to interfaith cooperation with other Nichiren Buddhists. But I am, in fact, confident of my opinions, and no, I don't think I owe anyone any apologies for that.

I have, on occasion, also been insistent, or even demanding. For example, this past December, after hearing the announcement of a local campaign to pray for the closure of Nichiren Shoshu temples (for those of you unfamiliar with the SGI, Nichiren Shoshu is our parent sect, from which we were "divorced" in the early 1990s), I wrote and published the following statement on my blog:

"Daisaku Ikeda and the SGI owe a huge debt of gratitude to the principle of religious freedom. There would be no world-wide Buddhist world peace organization, and Daisaku Ikeda would be no-one's eternal Mentor if it were not for the fact that Douglas MacArthur imposed a constitution on post World War II Japan which allowed the Soka Gakkai to grow and flourish as a lay organzation of Nichiren Shoshu. The SGI owes its very existence, and the organization's President owes his position to the principle of religious freedom. Here in the United States, that means that we respect other peoples' right to be wrong. We respect their rights to worship as they choose, even if we think it's dung-headed.

The SGI's campaign to shutter rival houses of worship in the United States is the height of ingratitude. It must stop immediately. I am no fan of Nichiren Shoshu doctrine - anyone who knows me knows that, but if the SGI wishes to spread Nichiren Buddhism as a mainstream religion in this country, it must do more than develop choice real estate and print glossy publications. We must respect the principles of this society, and religious freedom is chiefest among them.

Stop the War Now."

The tone in this statement is not warmly encouraging, nor is it chipper and joyful. It is insistent and it is direct. It is a demand. What I wished to accomplish in that case, was that I wished to make an articulate and strong demand that the hostilities with Nichiren Shoshu stop being promoted by the SGI-USA's leadership as a "faith activity".

If the problem pops up again, I will make the same point. In fact, I will continue to make it as loudly and as bluntly as I can, until whomever makes these "campaign" decisions decides that it is not worth the embarassment to continue fighting a Japanese religious turf war on American soil. There, I said it, and I said it in a direct tone. It is not intended as a challenge, it is intended as a statement of fact, and a clear and honest statement of my intentions. I hope that you, my readers, can handle it. If you cannot. you are under no obligation to read here. It's just a blog, after all. I hope that my frank tone is not offensive to you in that regard.

In the frenzied heyday of our conflict with Nichiren Shoshu, American SGI members were expected to study official materials which were filled with the most extreme rhetoric against our parent sect (a sect with whose doctrines I strongly disagree myself). Our own official publications even went so far as to compare (in writing) the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood to nazis and slavemasters (despite the fact that they weren't running any crematoria or putting any SGI members on boxcars or holding anyone in the church pews against their wills).

Seven years ago, some American SGI members tried to speak out against this, writing in a position paper addressed to the SGI-USA leadership:

"SGI-USA members embroiled in the campaign against the temple have demonstrated an increasing comfort level with vitriolic invective and negativity which can not be value creating in the long run. Among other things, it creates alienation in new members who know and care nothing about these matters. We know personally of many instances where potential new members have chosen not to practice the Daishonin’s Buddhism, based on this conflict alone. Historically, ideological war has led to actual war. While we do not suggest that this is a possibility in the case under discussion, we do feel that the spiritual violence being committed, and encouraged by the leadership, is damaging and harmful to our organization’s growth. Negative speech and actions can only generate negative results."

How does the tone of that sound? It sounds pretty reasonable to me. By the way, the individual members who authored this bit of reasonably-toned and insightful wisdom were denounced by the SGI's national leadership, and I think they even got a cease and desist letter from the Gakkai's lawyers telling them not to use the SGI-USA's name in the name of their group. I'm sure the tone of that letter was warmly encouraging.

I know of plenty of people who were scared away from the SGI by our tone during those "war years". Of course, as mom always said, "two wrongs don't make a right." So, shall we all think together about our tones and what it is that we want to accomplish? Or are self-reflection and self-restraint in writing, like Leona Helmsley and her taxes, only "for the little people"?

Personally, I look forward to a happy, golden age of true dialogue in the future, and I'd like to see all the membership at the table, and I'd like it to happen out here, where we can have a record and take the time to frame our thoughts in response to one another. But that's me. I like to write.

I'm curious to know what the rest of you-all think about the tone issue. Me, the more I chant about it, the more I think it's a way of avoiding dealing with content. But again, that's me. Thanks in advance for your input.

Byrd in LA

Posted by wahzoh at April 18, 2008 11:45 AM