A couple of weeks ago, I was visiting my dear aunt Irene, and together we were watching a series of lectures from a company called "The Teaching Company":
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
This company is so cool and no, they don't give me a kickback for plugging them on my blog. It is one of my life's ambitions to have gobs and gobs of money so that I can sit and watch lectures like this all day long. "Sick, sick, sick!" I hear you cry. Well, maybe, but I really do dig browsing through their online and mail catalogues. So sue me - some women like looking at pictures of jewelry and clothes, I like browsing through lecture course catalogues. It gets me excited, I guess. "Ancient and Modern Political Philosophy, Oh, God! Yes! give me some of that! Oh, yes, yes, yes!"
But seriously, folks, so I gave my dear aunt a set of these tapes for Christmas - a series of lectures on early Christianity by a professor named Bart Ehrmann. In one of his lectures, he talks about how anti-Semitism developed in the Christian Church as a result of the Christians trying to obtain a sort of market monopoly on the idea of One God. Basically, the Christians had to hate the Jews, and even had to eliminate them, or there would be living, breathing, walking, talking proof that the One God concept wasn't basically owned by the Christian (i.e., Roman) Church.
You see, at that time in Rome, the religious conccept of One God was sort of novel. Rome had all kinds of different gods - different strokes for different folks. They had a hearth god and a fertility god(dess) and a god of messages and a god of health. They had gods for every day of the week and two on Sunday, so when the Christians came along with their One God concept, it sort of blew everybody away. So the Christians had to get a market monopoly on the concept. That meant going after the Jews. Making them out to be ungrateful and blasphemous and disrespectful for all that the One God had done for them. It ultimately meant killing a lot of Jews, but that was to come later.
I was watching these tapes just about the same time that my friends' home in the Antelope Valley was being placed off limits for SGi meetings because the wife was converting to a different denomination of Nichiren Buddhists. One of the reasons given for this was that the Nichiren Shu and the SGI were "too similar". That's right, we're not worshiping with you because you're too much like us. Sound familiar? "Too similar"...that's not a world peace argument, that's a market monopoly argument.
I mean, think about it: How many times (if you are an SGI member) have you sat through a presentation about the practice where the person introducing the practice said basically that there are (X number) of Nichiren sects (or Y number of Buddhist practices), but ours is the only real one, or ours is the only one that works, or ours is the only True Buddhism, or whatever? I've certainly heard that a lot myself, over the years. Usually from people who know little or nothing about the other schools they are talking about. All we know is that we're better.
The SGI's market monopoly on the Daimoku is important to us, just as the Church of Rome's market monopoly on monotheism was important to them. And why should this be important to me?
Well, I guess it's important to me because I'm a German. That whole hatred of the Jews thing came to a huge head a couple of thousand years after it was started, and I don't want to be creating the same karma for myself or anyone else. That's why I get so cranky about the SGI's campaigns to close down Nichiren Shoshu temples. The German in me doesn't want to be associated with declaring that other churches are 'evil, and trying to close them down, or trying to get rid of them because they're in competition with my church, or because they don't revere my religious leader-of-choice.
So, who's the slanderer? I have gotten calls from very upset Gakkai members who believe that I'm engaged in some sort of slander campaign against the SGI on this blogsite (which I don't personally think I am). I've actually been told that I'm "slandering the SGI" by someone who refused to even look at this site!! Really. On the other hand, we regularly (I mean regularly) try to treat the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra as if it were our church's property. Which it isn't. Isn't that a slander? I dunno - you tell me.
You know what they say- those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Bye for now.
Have a good day, all - Byrd in LA
Posted by wahzoh at April 22, 2008 12:33 PMOh, yeah... the Teaching Company. I drool over their catalogs.
I'm not German, but I am half-Spanish. We Spaniards put the "In" in the word Inquisition. So, you could say I have pretty strong feelings about any thing that smells anything like situations that are going to marginalize members of different faiths.
I think the SGI Victory over Violence (VOV) programs quite neatly encapsulates why it's important not to use language that marginalizes and then demonizes the "other". I also wonder why more SGI members who are active in VOV haven't noted the incongruity between what is taught in VOV and the whole anti-Shoshu strain of verbage so many SGI members chose to use. There's a major disconnect there.
I am not sure the word "slander" applies to trying to keep a group one is loyal to from going down a path that has historically led to a bad end. In fact, there was a crazy guy named Nichiren who "slandered" his rulers because he thought his "group" was going down the wrong road.
Hmmm.... maybe, Byrd, you are just more, well, Nichiren-er than some.
More in a bit,
Kris
Byrd, how dare you say the king is naked, how dare you point out the pink elephant in the middle of the room .Oh I can so relate to your delima. Did i spell delima right. So IMHO the only way its slander, is if i have done it and i beleive its slander. If i have done something and i don't beleive its slander, then its not slander. All in the eye of the beholder.
Good stuff. Keep it coming. I need my daily hit of Byrd.
Although I strongly agree that SGI's anti-Nichiren Shoshu campaign is wrong, I wonder about comparing it with the persecution of Jews. I mean millions of Jews died. I don't think anyone is in danger of dying in the SGI/NS war. Comparing the two trivializes what the Jews went through. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Vanya at April 23, 2008 10:49 AMHi, Vanya - I absolutely agree with you. My concern is that in order to avoid similar fruits, we avoid planting similar seeds. In both cases, the issue has to do with demonizing another religion in order to create a market monopoly regarding a religious idea or practice.
I think I've made pretty clear in a number of my previous posts that the use of Nazi and slavemaster imagery to describe the SGI/NST war is inaccurate and inappropriate. My thoughts had to do with Professor Ehrmann's analysis of how anti-Semitism in the Christian Church started, and the fact that this "seed" (protecting a market monopoly) is very similar to the "seed" which is being planted here. I'm trying to nip the fruit in the bud.
Thanks for writing in, and I do agree with you 100%.
Wahzoh
Posted by: Byrd in LA at April 23, 2008 11:12 AMBeing Dutch, and by being so I also feel partially responsible for the slavery during the 17th till 19th century in the America's, I see history repeating itself. A few years ago our PM said that we, Duchies, should be proud again on our nation and our trading spirit. Just like we where in the 17th century we where proud on the VOC, short for Verenigde Oost-indische Company; Combined East Indian Company.
It's like denying slavery ever occurred, just like denying the holocaust ever happened. Same goes for Christianity as being a monolistic religion. Actually, it weren't nor the Christians or the Jews who invented it but the Egyptians.
I think diversity is a good thing. It enables dialogue. Even between schools who once originated from the same teacher. Take Nichiren Shu and Nichiren Shoshu. SGI was once linked to the latter , but both schools originated with Nichiren. After Nichiren's death and the appointment by heritage of Nikko Shonin, it came to a split between the 6 monks who where Nichiren's disciples at that time. Mainly because some of them thought that because of their age or wisdom where more entitled and destined to be the next high priest instead of Nikko. Nikko founded, what later would be known as, Nichiren Shoshu and took the Dai-Gohonzon to Tajikishi. His rival stayed at mount Minubu and founded Nichiren Shu.
Even after 750 years both schools claim to be the one and only true Nichiren school and claim to have the only and true Dai-Gohozon in their possession. While most senior members who practiced already before Nikken came into power and went to the temple in Japan, know that Nichiren Shoshu has the Dai-Gohonzon.
So let's burry the war axes and have a dialogue with each other again!
NMHRK
André
Andre -
Respectfully, I believe that you have made a couple of misstatements in your summation above, at least according to my current understanding of the history of the Nichiren Schools after Nichiren's passing. I would appreciate any clarification you can provide to improve my understanding of same.
First, there was no such thing as a 'high priest' when Nichiren passed away, and I do not believe that this was the source of the disputes between Nichiren's disciples. If you have information that illustrates this was the source of the problems, I am very interested to read it. For that matter, many Nichiren schools do not have a 'high priest' today. Nichiren Shu is among these; there are several abbots, but no 'central figure'; I am also unaware of this being an office historically within Nichiren Shu. Again, any information you may have otherwise would be most welcome.
Secondly, I am at a loss to understand where you come up with the idea that Nichiren Shu claims to have "the only and true Dai-Gohonzon in their possession", since there is no such thing. Nichiren never (to my knowledge) indicated that any of his Omandalas were any different than the others. Since Nichiren Shu doesn't recognize any 'Dai' or 'Great' gohonzon (one above the others), how could they possibly claim to possess such a thing? You have me highly puzzled here. Could you please elaborate on this claim?
I am asking these questions, because in my experience dialogue works best when we all work from the same set of facts, and we don't seem to have reached that point yet. Any clarifications you would care to provide will be greatly appreciated.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 24, 2008 07:05 AMAy-yi-yi! I'll need to do yet another blog on this issue. Not until next week, though.
Hang tight until then, guys.
Eek!
Wahzoh
Posted by: Byrd in LA at April 24, 2008 12:21 PM