Recently, on a Soka Gakkai discussion chat room, I ran across a thread pertaining to a perceived deficiency with regard to general Buddhist works derived from independent scholarly sources. My simple answer is simply, "SGI leaders are real-world Buddhists." Read on for my long answer.
SGI leaders are very often people with real lives; they have jobs, familes and relationships, commitments and constraints, which do not apply to religious studies teachers or monks who study Buddhism many hours each day. While this may be (strictly speaking) a disadvantage when talking about certain scholarly works, they are aided by an insight into overcoming their obtacles through practical Buddhism, giving them an edge when dealing with real-life problems.
This is a crucial point, and there are some natural, salient implications and inferences that come to mind:
1. Practical vs Theory: This is the age old fallacy about theoretical solutions always being practical or realizable (in theory...). I could elaborate, but I won't right now for time, hopefully this is enough to convey my meaning. The crux of this point is that the leadership structure of SGI is organized around leaders who have kids, jobs, and other relationships and constraints (that they must deal with in their daily lives) and therefore naturally place emphasis on the practical advice and "nutshell" literature available. For people with the aforementioned constraints, perhaps these sources of Buddhist knowledge provide a foundation rich enough in theoretical basis and yet practical enough for those people to use in their daily challenges and assist them in their (bodhisattva-practice) attempts to help and encourage others. Kinda like walking the middle (way?) ground between the researcher (theory) and the engineer (practice).
2. Optimization of the Problem: How do you get maximum traction towards your goal? If your goal is to inspire others, it is simply more effective to concentrate on strengths. When I meet someone for the first time, I don't introduce myself and then immediately rattle off a list of all my bad habits (besides, my list is always outdated according to my partner anyway). Similarly, we in SGI are lucky enough to have a large corpus of encouraging works handy, and very often the sources cited during our meetings are from that corpus out of convenience. In my observation, this is because the problems being faced by members and leaders often has some bit of encouragement in that corpus that directly applies (or at least is very relevant), thus making it easier to recall and share later. To understand similar encouragements from works originating from outside the SGI corpus, I've often found it is necessary to give a background summary before sharing such encouragement, so that the point can be shared. This digression noticably lessens the effect on the listener and mutes the actual communucation of ideas (despite the desire to broaden horizons in doing so). In my experience, the "old-timers" that have dealt with problems similar to those I face have a wealth of encouragement from SGI sources, and when I'm down, I'm not capricious about the exact origin of the source I derive encouragement from. Maybe I should be, but I don't see the point if it works. Of course, I still have a rotary phone in my house, because the darn thing still works...
3. Time Ain't in Infinite Supply: There simply aren't enough hours in the day. This is true of leaders that lead normal, hectic lives. Studying works from outside the SGI may be an admirable effort, but many people I know and love in the SGI can scrape together a few minutes to peruse a magazine, but are not able to set aside the time necessary to finish a book, particularly when that book requires at least passing familarity with a slew of other reference materials and terminologies. This means that, in general, SGI leaders are often less familiar with outside sources, than say, a monk who studies such works many hours a day.
The above points are not generalizable to all leaders, because I know quite a few that have a very broad background/understanding in Buddhism, to which the above circumstances clearly do not apply. However, I do think these points are well suited to leaders in the trenches, on the front lines in SGI chapters and districts, who are looked to most often, and who form the bulk of the leadership in sheer numbers.
So I'll sign off with a final thought;
Did you ever stop to notice... ...that SGI leaders have a life too?
Mike, I really like what you wrote below:
"I don't think this is the kind of studying that can be mandated. I believe an individual has to desire this for it to be at all effective."
I agree. Wholeheartedly. So the question is, do SGI leaders have this desire? I can't speak for anyone but myself... My personal answer is yes, I have this desire... I do however think that one has to strike a balance between studying and taking action, helping others, etc. And the point of my original message was that this balance will be subjective based on the individual.
Eddie, I think you are taking a rather extreme view, but I can respect the indignation you express. The reality is, actions often speak louder than words... If I want to improve the study efforts in my area, it would make sense for me to roll up my sleeves and get involved. Good point, and one that I alluded to in my last response to comments.
Charles, it occured to me while reading your comments that there is a broader undertone that should be addressed. It occured to me that we, as Buddhists need to be able to reach out to other people, not just Buddhists. In Nichiren's day, everybody was Buddhist, with varying degrees of depth of study. Buddhism was a topic of familiarity. Today, in America, this is not the case. So we, in effect, by simply becomming experts in Nichiren Buddhism (or even Buddhism in general), adopt a self-imposed myopic view of society when we focus solely on Buddhism.
If we are truly to practice for others, and exhibit Buddhist mercy by introducing others, we, as SGI members must be experts in a much more diverse set of topics than just Buddhism. It stands to reason that we would need to know, say, "astronomy" and "foreign languages" and "literature" and various other subjects as well, in order to relate and communicate with others. There is an old debate about which approach works best all the time, breadth or depth. My personal view is that somewhere in the middle is the "right" way.
I had not explored that avenue of thought, thanks for sparking my imagination.
Posted by: EarthSong at April 27, 2004 10:56 PMEarthsong:
You bring up some interesting points for discussion. It has been my experience that most leaders at the district level and up are able to intelligently discuss the basics of Nichiren Buddhism. Keep in mind, he knew everything about the other sects. That should be our goals as well.
One of the benefits of a mentor like PI is that he has absorbed the essence of the sutras and other forms of Buddhism and made them accessable to the beleivers in a modern fashion. With that said, we should realize that even though the Daishonin has written that to chant the daimoku embodies the highest form of meditation, we are generally ignorant of the whole of Buddhism.
However, by way of extension, it is probably also true that practictioners of other forms of Buddhism - including priests - are generally ignorant of othert forms of Buddhism outside their sect.
Is it necessary for ND Buddhists to know or be conversant about other forms of Buddhdism? At first, I would say no - it may just lead to confusion. As practice progresses it seems as though we should learn what we can about Buddhism beyond our own sect if we are going to be taken seriously in our propagation efforts and as the self-proclaimed practioners of the highest form of Buddhism. We should be able to discuss - beyond our own theoretical principals - things like tantra, mantra yoga, Zen, the practices of various sects, dhyana and samadhi meditation, mudras, and various sutras. Some might wonder what good such knowledge is when "we" offer the true and immediate way to happiness and Buddhahood via practice to the Gohonzon?
I believe that scholarship will not make you any happier, but lack of it might make you look as if you're full of hot air, spouting slogans and cliches, when informed discourse is in order. I do not believe that being busy is an excuse for ignorance. I know many leaders who would surely flunk a university course in Buddhism or comparative religion because they only know the tenants of our own sect.
On a positive note, the solution to our problem can be solved by the SGI-USA study department implimenting a broadbased, comprehensive study program that includes lessons on the many sects and practices associated with Buddhism and also its parent religion Hinduism. When we study these other sects and practices without the angry brow of condemnation of slander, we will also begin to look less like mystic storm-troopers and more like compassionate Buddhists. We are not in mideval Japan, fighting goverrnment financed sects - we are in a land of religious freedom where the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism is viewed as great and we are generally viewed as extremists. We can change all of that.
My hat is off to all the leaders and members who hold down jobs, attend many meetings, maintain a vigorous practice and study as best they can. We need to study widely and deeply, just as a martial arts student must focus.
Until we open up to the whole of Buddhism instead of disparaging all but our own, we will not be embraced and might just get our ass kicked in high level discussion. That's not exactly the result the highest form of Buddhism is supposed to achieve.
Charles Atkins
Posted by: Charles Atkins at April 26, 2004 10:55 PMIf any body has any suggestions on how ameliorate the depth in the study aspect of Buddhism, I'd like to hear it. The reality of the situation is that we have no clergy that is charged with studying the teachings of Nichiren in depth and transmitting to the rest of the laity. We're not like the Catholic church which has numerous schools associated with praishes to disseminate the catechism. And as a district leader I always do my best to stay current with my study of Buddhism.
However, our study material limited and as is our time. So put up or shut up.
Earthsong -
There are a great variety of choices for Buddhist basic material, as long as one doesn't require them to be published or vetted by a particular source. There isn't any need to create a new set of these, unless that is really something someone just wants to do.
I have personally found that understanding the "basic Buddhist" background which many of Nichiren's followers had, lends a different perspective and meaning to a number of his writings.
I also like reading both Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra in as many different translations as possible; preferably side-by-side. It can be quite eye-opening to see how different translators have approached some of the more difficult concepts. I also feel this gives me the greatest possibility of understanding the original work short of learning the original language.
On the other hand, I don't think this is the kind of studying that can be mandated. I believe an individual has to desire this for it to be at all effective.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 19, 2004 07:53 PMC'mon Brian, don't be so harsh. Indeed there are leaders that are ignorant of what the 4 Noble Truths are, however there are certainly some that are not. Neither assertion is true in all cases, and I'm not convinced that they are all pitifully ignorant.
You imply that I am making excuses, but I am not. I am simply explaining my views on the subject; that there is a middle path between the two extremes of complete lack of study and total immersion in Buddhist philosophy. Surely study should be balanced with taking action in our lives, and surely there is room for faith and faith building activities. If all of these components are balanced and steadily growing in the lives of the members, across the entire organization, surely all would benefit.
It occurs to me as well that, despite the fact that I am talking about a course-grained scale (all leaders in the organization), however leaders are individuals, and at the fine-grained scale we end up dismissing those leaders that do strive to make the study of works originating from both internal and external sources a priority. This is really not central to the discussion, just a side-note.
To be convincing in arguing that the organization's current level of study proficiency is inadequate, we would need a survey of say, district leaders, to at least back up the generalization that SGI leaders are not adequately grounded in Buddhist knowledge. To set up such a valid (statistically) survey would take quite a lot of work, but something like that would certainly hold more weight than an individual who is unhappy with the status quo (or anyone who wishes to chastize the organization for not adhereing to individual ideas of what leaders should or must know to be competant Buddhists). Most leaders would likely tell us that they are perfectly competant thank you very much, despite lacking in general Buddhist knowledge in someone else's estimation.
Raising awareness of a perceived lack in depth of study is important, but the reason for my post was that this urgency must be tempered with reason; we must observe all the variables and factor those in if we are discover a solution (if there really is a problem). Do we start by publishing readers-digest versions of these general Buddhist works? Or would it be better to have a "Buddhist term of the day" email list to give people the background to forge ahead in this area? Perhaps special seminars for those wishing a detailed study of particular works? The latter could be offered at a local community college, providing a wonderful means to introduce people interested in Buddhism. Lots of work to do, any volunteers?
Thanks Mike, for your comments. The leaders I have grown to respect and admire over the years are very much like you, in that they are very humble, and when confronted with something new, they do not pretend to know more than they do. It is impossible to know everything, limited as we are by this existence. (IMO).
Posted by: EarthSong at April 14, 2004 07:12 PMWell, I was a District Chief for over 13 years and I know very, very well how demanding and time-consuming it is. However, that is no excuse for not reading widely about Buddhism, especially when our publications are still tainted with the deceptions of Taisekiji. And the level of general Buddhist knowledge among leaders is, well, pitiful. Most of them think that the Four Noble Truths are: No running in the Community Center, No loud talking during the silent prayers, etc. - Brian
Posted by: Brian Holly at April 14, 2004 03:05 PMEarthsong -
I used to be exactly the leader you describe. The big problem I see though, and I used to do it too, is that many of these folk (with the best of intentions) present themselves as if they ARE theoretical buddhist scholars. In my case it was because I didn't know how much I didn't know. I still don't, but I am at least aware that the scope of my ignorance is vast.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 13, 2004 02:55 PM