A friend of mine is in the process of building a Nichiren Buddhist sangha in cooperation with a local Unitarian Universalist church where she lives. This is something that has been done in other areas, as well, and Unitarian churches have also developed cooperative programs with Vipassana (insight meditation) groups, Zen meditation groups, as well as yoga practitioners and others. For those of you who are interested, one of the articles I read is here:
http://boundlesswayzen.org/meyerhoff.html
So, what sorts of issues bubble to the surface when people form religious communities and when those religious communities start to grow? Needless to say, one of the biggest issues (no pun) is the issue of size. Is less more, or is bigger better? I really don't know, and I'd be interested to hear what your opinions are.
The SGI's size and relative predictability in terms of meeting content have made it successful in many ways. It is nice to know that you can go to pretty much any country in the world and find a local community of people wo do the exact same liturgy that you do, speak the same Buddhist "language" that you do, and are organized along similar lines. The SGI's critics have had a field day with this, of course, characterizing SGI introductory meetings as "Buddhist infomercials", and comparing our community centers to Holiday Inns or McDonalds, with their comforting, global brand-recognition.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for knowing where to go and who to talk to, what to do and who to do it with. It eliminates a lot of stress, doesn't it?
The other size feature of the SGI is, of course, the local group or district. In a way, the SGI does combine the best of both worlds - you have the global qualities of a large organization, but also have the local community feel of a smaller group. That's a good thing, I think.
There are plenty of other size and local governance isues as well, though - for example, to what extent are members free to choose which local group they wish to practice with? To what extent are local groups free to determine their own styles of governance and their own rules for running things? Their own emphasis (for example, a study emphasis, or an interfaith emphasis)? How much is decided for us, and how much are we free to decide for ourselves? Should the general membership have a voice in choosing their leaders, or should it continue to be the "line above" that makes these decisions?
Some of this is, of course, discussed in the recent SGI-USA Personnel Manual. I keep waiting for it to be published on the SGI-USA webpage, but I don' t think it has been, yet.
I am curious to know how others here feel about the issue of size - do you like a smaller, locally governed group? Or do you prefer the larger, centrally governed structure? What do you think are the advantages of each?
Enquiring minds want to know,
Your pal in LA, Byrd
Posted by wahzoh at June 10, 2008 12:05 PMAs with most things (except my musical tastes which tend to run to extremes) I prefer the Middle Way.
I like that in Nichiren Shu one can gather in larger groups at the temples (where there is a temple) but that people are also encouraged to form more local practice groups in homes, apartments, or wherever they can find the space.
I like that in Nichiren Shu there is a standard liturgy but that this standard allows for variations - it is kind of modular in fact. There are certain key modules - chanting the Hoben-pon, the Jigage, and the Odaimoku that everyone will chant together. Even the parts that the ministers or leaders do are pretty standard - the Kanjo or Opening Prayer, the Kaikyoge or Verses for Opening the Sutra, the Eko or Final Dedication, the Four Great Bodhisattva Vows and such - though there are different versions of Kanjo and Eko depending on the service and inclinations of those doing the service. Then there are other things that can be taken out or added in depending on the group - the Shomyo hymns, other passages of the Lotus Sutra for recitation, readings from the gosho and so on. Even these can be found in the standard Nichiren Shu service books. All the minister (or whoever is leading the service) has to do is call out the page numbers.
I like that at this stage in the development of Nichiren Buddhism in America most groups are small enough to be gatherings of family and friends. There are no large impersonal congregatons. I hope the model of small groups meeting regularly in homes will continue but I also hope that these small groups will also continue to get together at the temples and for larger conferences and retreats. This is the way other Buddhists in America tend to practice as well - small practice groups scattered here and there who occasionally link up with larger groups for larger events.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I like the small group better. I always enjoyed the group meetings more than the district and the district better than the chapter. I think the larger group should serve to facilitate the smaller and each group should not be discouraged from developing it's own flavor. It seems very controlling to me to not allow a person to practice with whatever group they wish.
Posted by: clown hidden at June 10, 2008 04:00 PMHi, Byrd & all -
Personally I agree with Ryuei's comments here. It's also quite surprising what a very small number of determined individuals can accomplish when they set their minds to it.
Myself, I find it more important to have a general consensus regarding goals. There are some very different ideas, concepts and themes regarding what sangha is and should be; how it should be organized and operate. Getting large numbers of people to agree on such (excluding the method of accepting something already in place) is quite a challenge, especially here in the individualistic societies of North America.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at June 11, 2008 04:35 AM