It’s a funny thing - our critics, the critics of the SGI - I understand members have varying degrees of good or bad experiences in SGI, and how some leave under painful circumstances. The problem as I have viewed it these past couple of decades is that Gakkai critics have formed and created their own anti-SGI dogma.
One of the gospels of critical SGI-ism is “we don’t read the Lotus Sutra”. Another is “we abandon Shakyamuni Buddha”.
Truthfully, it used to be true. NSA, in the old days, only wanted to acknowledge the Gosho of Nichiren, and our own sectarian guidance material.
We’ve changed. We’ve grown.
Considering that Nichiren Buddhism has only been spread through the American populace for barely more than 3 decades, SGI isn’t doing too bad, in my opinion anyway.
I am hosting the annual SGI Study review exam this weekend for my district. As usual I waited until this last week to study in earnest, but that’s the way I am. The funny thing is that I have had repeated phone calls from members asking for help on various study topics (apparently I’m suppose to be up on this stuff - not sure where that idea came from).
More than half of our material is based on understanding the Lotus Sutra. The material is more in-depth this year, even more so than the last. The three categories of the Lotus Sutra, the prime points of Shakyamuni’s lifetime, “the three meetings and two places” and much more…
The rest is based on three Gosho, and there’s some material revolving around our refutation of Nichiren Shoshu. No SGI guidance.
One thing I am aware of and have made peace with is that our study is categorized as “sectarian scholarship”, I.e. study based on our own sect’s doctrine. The two other categories of scholarship are historical, and academic scholarship. As outlined in a thesis written by J. Stone the problems these three bodies experience is as follows;
Buddhology scholars, fearful that they will conflict with sectarian doctrine, tend to stick with Indic research.
Sectarian scholars are highly invested only in their own sect’s interests and interpretation.
Historians, who largely get stuck with the greatest responsibility of research and publishing, often don’t intimately understand Buddhism.
All I would ask is that those who spout their out-of-date anti-Gakkai dogma would perhaps consider updating a little. We no longer discard the Lotus Sutra, ignore Shakyamuni, nor do we only study our own guidance.
Speaking soley for myself, when I see these obsolete rants on out-of-date and neglected websites, it’s a clear indicator that they were written by someone who is blinded by their own unreasonable resentment. Maybe it’s time to move on?
Donald