Reverend Greg

he people that wrote the code of conduct are probably thinking, "Gee whiz, we just can't win. First people wanted a code of conduct spelled out for leaders, then when we produce one, they won't agree to abide by it in writing! They'll never be happy!"

If you're going to have a code of conduct, it's kind of pointless unless people commit to it. I object to some of the more general provisions, but I can see the reasoning behind having people sign. I don't know if it has any legal force, other than allowing leaders to be removed from their position, which they can do now anyway.

I'm not a leader and I'm not even close to being one. If I were, I don't know if I would sign or not.

Excellent reply Vanya. I hope I made it clear that it is just that one sentence that spoils the milk, so to speak.

I still have dualistic feelings about the whole thing. The manual is excellent. Addressing issues such as registered sex offenders was truly bold and courageous.

If I were asked to sign the ubiquitous "I acknowledge that I have read this code etc. etc." and if the code simply stated what is expected, I don't think I would have an issue. I do believe in a published code of conduct, and I do agree to follow it, as I always have.

The line in Star Wars III about only the Sith dealing in absolutes - there is tremendous real-life truth to this. Absolute black and white, with us or against us thinking is the product of CULT thinking, which is exclusive, not inclusive. Exclusive thinking cannot be truly Buddhist - period.

RG

Greg, where can this Code of Conduct be viewed? First I've heard of it.

Cheers!

Andy

The clause i have trouble with is the one that states: "Not engage in any other behavior that disrupts the harmonious unity of the SGI or disturbs the faith and practice of its members."

Vanya has a good point - we did need a code, and I'm glad there is one, specifically inregard to issues such as protection of member confidences (a pet peeve of mine for years).

This last clause is very,v ery broad and vague to me, though - can a blog such as this one be interpreted as a behavior which disrupts the harmoniuous unity of believers"? How about posting toa Yahoo board? How about discussing with another member a piece of modern scholarship by a Princeton professor which contradicts the SGI's version of Nichiren history? All those could easily fall under that category of "disrupting harmonious unity", and yet they are all expressions of treasured Western freedoms.

Also, I'm very interested to see how this will be enforced. Will people have notice of what their offenses are? Will they be in writing? Will you have a right to defend? A right to a record of some sort, particularly ifyour behaviour falls into this very, very vague category of "anyother behavior"? Will there be precedents of some sort? I'm really curious about that.

Has enforcement been mentioned, Greg? Do you know anything about this?

Bye for now, Byrd in LA

Greg, forget my last post. I found Isuzu's blog. Heady stuff, to say the least (and that dude is really funny). Like Byrd, I zeroed in on "disrupting the harmonious unity of the SGI."

This turd has been floating in the SGI waters since it was NSA, and no one has managed to flush it away yet. Of course we know why, but that doesn't mean it soesn't still stink. It's the generic stick with which any leader can, at any time, beat a given member about the head and shoulders. "Breaking unity" can be anything from disagreeing with a leader to hating Mr. Ikeda's poetry (and saying so).

If I were still a leader in the SGI-USA, I wouldn't sign this document. It's just more kool-aid.

Cheers!

Andy

I doubt if SGI would approve of this pledge being posted online. It could be considered a copyright violation.

"Has enforcement been mentioned, Greg? Do you know anything about this?"

No Byrd, I haven't mentioned enforcement in any of my blogs. Being a Ninja of course I focus more on retaliation than enforcement.

Rev. Ninja, Greg

Vanya states; "I doubt if SGI would approve of this pledge being posted online. It could be considered a copyright violation."

I don't think so. First, who is asking? Second, quoting a publicly available document is not Copywrite infringement.

I don't pretend to know Copywrite law however. Anyone?

RG

Greg, don't worry about the copyright stuff until you get a letter. When we put out the "SGI-USA Reform Declaration" we each got one from George Odano, "counsel" to the SGI-USA. Of course, anyone who knows him knows that he's just another of the crop of YMD sent from Japan in the 70s to "grow up" in the SGI-USA (then NSA) and "inherit" it (which meant that round eyes need not apply, of course).

Anyway, it was a "cease and desist" demand regarding use of the name "SGI-USA" in the title of the declaration, but carried no real legal weight. I suppose that, had we persisted (rather than fade into the woodwork, as we did), they might have taken further measures. I know they chased Lisa off and got her to shut down "Buddhajones", but she actually had a prior contract with them that they claimed she breached.

Bottom line: don't worry about it until you get the first letter. Then you can decide to worry, fight, hide, or whatever.

Cheers!

Andy

A copyright is created when you create a written document. The author has the right to control how it is distributed. You can't reproduce it without the author's permission, no matter how "publicly available" it is.

It's not a matter of legality; it's a matter of respecting other people's rights.

Vanya - you clearly don't know what you're talking about in this case. In fact *I* never stated my intention to post the document on my blog. That was from someone else. I'm thinking maybe I should as it should be known.

Rev. Greg

I just assumed you and Joe are the same person.

WHAT!? No, Joe is a real guy named David Leisure. I dare you to look him up on wikipedia.org!

Rev. Greg

Oh, wow! I know David Liesure. He's a great guy, and very funny to boot. Didn't know that was him.

Cheers!

Andy

Vanya said: "A copyright is created when you create a written document. The author has the right to control how it is distributed. You can't reproduce it without the author's permission, no matter how 'publicly available' it is."

---
Seems like this would qualify as a "fair use," particularly if only an excerpt of the document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

A copyright infringement is really about the money. If you've gone beyond the nebulous realm of "fair usage," or are not crediting the original author, a legal stink can be made but there is the expense of a lawyer, filing costs, and the matter of time - these things require time.

If the copyrighted material isn't generating money for the pirate, good luck with getting any kind of judgment or satisfaction from your legal efforts.

Charles

Hi Greg,

Totally off topic, but I made a favicon for FWP. If you'd like, I can email it to you.

Michele

What other religios organizations make a lay leader sign an oath of conduct?? The Presbyterians? No. The Jews? No. Muslim Clerics? No. The Kempon Hokke? No. The Nichiren Shu? No.
Catholics (the older brothers of the SGI)? Maybe, they should, at the priests. The SGI needs a code of conduct obviously because its faith and practice is bereft of real benefit in the real world. Get out while you can. It is not Buddhism.

Mark

Greg,

In response to the first portion of your post - the SGI is regarded as a cult by the media. Take a look at the articles that both Time and Forbes put out a few years ago. I recently said bye-bye to the Borg after almost chocking on my own vomit at a district meeting. I just couldn't stomach the M/D talk any longer. The district leader had told us that the Daimoku chanted with Sensei in our hearts was so much more powerful than just chanting. This comment forced me to swallow my own vomit.
Someone in the posts made a reference to Lisa Jones. I always suspected that she was being harassed with a lawsuit into silence. The SGI is an absolutely vile organization. I am so very glad I left and I can't understand how anyone who is exposed to the teachings of Shakyamuni and Nichiren (away from the SGI publications) can stay in the org unless they are either very arrogant and turned-on by the Ikeda love fest or very needy for authoritarian religion.

Aaron

Aaron - thanks for your reply. There's only one thing I will comment on - Lisa Jones. I understand she's the hero of the cult fighter community out there, but never forget that Lisa signed some level of a confidentiality contract (she would never say what) and SGI is a religious corporation. You can say SGI is the bad guy and harassed poor little Lisa, but in fact Lisa was 100% cultie at one point - even worse - she was an EMPLOYEE of the cult in SGI which is something even deeper.

As I have always suspected, many cult-fighters are really just former culties whose expectations or needs weren't fully met.

Remember, there are no such thing as "professional Buddhists".

Rev. Greg

Greg,

What an interesting response. A couple of questions and a comment.

Question: How does Lisa Jones being a former employee (as I understand it a ghost writer for "All Hail to the Great One" Ikeda) diminish the work of her website? Since you don't know the contents of her contract how can you assume that "poor little Lisa" was conflicted by her membership in the SGI? I don't recall anything on her website that suggested she was betraying the organization by demanding financial accountability.

My comment: There are professional Buddhists. The fine people working at the top of SGI hive are making a shit load of money. I would call this calculated and professional.

Aaron

"Question: How does Lisa Jones being a former employee (as I understand it a ghost writer for "All Hail to the Great One" Ikeda) diminish the work of her website?"

What website? I see no website. My point is simply that she signed a contract with SGI, and then violated it (we assume). SGI is a religious corporation and sought to enforce the contract. Besides, Lisa never tried to claim victim status anyway.

"My comment: There are professional Buddhists. The fine people working at the top of SGI who are making a shit load of money. I would call this calculated and professional."

Exactly. There are no professional Buddhists.

Rev. Greg

Hi Greg,

I should have phrased my question regarding "Buddhajones" (the website/blog) in the past tense. You can still answer the question if you want.

Why should we "assume" that Lisa violated the terms and conditions of her contract? Other cults (such as Scientology) are famous for using lawsuits and potential lawsuits for silencing dissidents, former members and perceived foes. It's not like the SGI doesn't have a reputation for this kind of behaviour.

Can you explain your response to my last statement about professional Buddhists? Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet but I don't quite get your "exactly"....and just to let you know, I don't perceive Lisa Jones as a victim. I see her former quest for financial accountability as very much in the spirit of mentor/disciple. With the real mentor that is, Nichiren Shonin.

Aaron

Regarding Buddhajones, I think Charles addressed what really happened in his last blog. I don't know, I wasn't there, I've never been a paid employee of SGI, and I'm not sure what exactly she did. Fact is, SGI owned her to some degree.

What I'm really saying Aaron, since we don't seem to be on the same bandwidth (and that's ok) is that Lisa chose to play the big game, as a cultie, and then got burned later down the road. You can see her as a cult-fighting hero, I see her as a failed cultie.

Secondly, what I am saying is that there is no such thing as a professional Buddhist, leader or otherwise. Employees of SGI are no longer Buddhists, they are "something else". I put this in quotes because it's a uniquely Japanese term, a polite way to not say something offensive or judgmental.

SGI employment has long fascinated me. People who were once in viable jobs or careers are taken out and made a "wards of the state", a paid employee of SGI. How can one make their living off of their Buddhist faith? They can't. In fact employees, in some fashion, must have corporate rolls and functions, jobs that serve the religious corporation.

When I left telecommunications, my skills became obsolete in less than a year. Technology changes. Some of the SGI employees may in fact have college degrees, however they are, in my opinion, stuck - forever, employees in a religious corporate machine.

They can't speak their mind, they lose their real personal voice, they can't CHANGE their mind, and their very Buddhist practice, to some degree, becomes the property of SGI.

Who are these people? What kind of people ARE they really, these "professional Buddhists"? What will become of them if and as SGI becomes more and more cult-like? They certainly can't oppose doctrine or they risk threatening their very livelihood.

One more thing we can all ponder Aaron - Buddhism is a critical religion. It's a religion if criticism against established and entrenched religious power on every level, and starting from Shakyamuni. Matsumoto and Hakamaya, in their Critical Buddhism works illustrated this very definitively.

They both retired their positions as Zen priests in order to make this statement. I believe on some equivalent level they also realized they couldn't continue to be "professional Buddhists".

If you can't speak your mind, if you can't CHANGE your mind, if you can't evolved, develope or travel your own path of self-discovery, then neither are you free, nor truly Buddhist.

Also, please don't speak ignorantly of Scientology unless you know what you are really talking about - please. Scientology made the mold for the dangerous cult religious corporation. When it comes to being a cult, they put SGI to shame. We're rank amateurs compared to them. For starters, we don't even completely control our own doctrine.

Rev. Greg

Your last post is fascinating Greg. Twelve years ago or more, Frank Riccio? Reggio? (last name escapes me) was a payed employee of the SGI in the New York region. He was a true SGI believer but wouldn't play the game and was fired. He came to my house to chant and talk about Buddhism. The Kempon Hokke wasn't his cup of tea and he eventually procured a Nichiren Shu Gohonzon or joined the Nichiren Shu. He did what he had to do to live with himself and he survived. I have not the least bit of sympathy for these paid shills.

I am a doctor. I made some bad career and financial decisions some years back. I had to take my family and move into a house with 17 other people and one bathroom. I eventually recovered and now have the best job of my life. With or without the Gohonzon, most people survive.

Those employeees that are true believers in SGI and never have a contrary thought, I can muster some sympathy for. Those that know the truth and remain, are spineless sycophants attatched to money and they will die in shame. Capable people who don't even chant and believe in the Lotus Sutra, develop their skills, change their careers all the time, and survive, even those in their fifties. Those who chant with a correct faith and practice will always be protected and will never wont for food, clothing, and shelter.

Mark

Frank Recchia

Hi,

Lisa Jones signed a contract to ghost write a revision of Ikeda's book on living and dying (I forget the name of it now) and in that contract was a non-disclosure agreement (I think that is what it is called). Basically in the contract she promised not to ever reveal her role as a ghost writer. Out of frustration and disillusionment with SGI she posted that contract online. I spoke with her on the phone the day before she did it (or was it that morning) and I warned her what the repercussions might be, and she knew them too. Plain and simple - breach of contract! Shortly after that she closed down Buddhajones and hasn't said anything public about SGI since. And really it's none of our business anymore what happened after that.

As for there being no professional Buddhists, I kind of disagree with Greg. Or at least I have a different view or a different point. The historical Buddha himself set up the Sangha for monks (and eventually nuns) to be Buddhist practitioners 24/7 living apart from jobs or family and totally reliant on the support of the householders. In East Asian Buddhism, the monasteries became self-supporting. In Japan, the monks had their own armies to protect their estates. So the monastic system totally became perverted true. And now it has evolved in Japan into a family business. However, aside from the abuses there have always been and continue to be monastics/ministers who make their vocation their life, who are very sincere and compassionate, and who are very free to speak their minds as they are not beholden to any corporation or inquisition but only to their supporters. Think about it: Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, Nichidatsu Fuji, Pema Chodron, perhaps Sylva Boorstein, and many others - aren't they "professional Buddhists" or at least "vocational Buddhists." One may or may not agree with their take on the Dharma, but I would personally be hard pressed to say that they are not genuine Buddhists who are doing their best to live and share the Dharma with others, and they don't seem to have anyone they have to answer to for doctrinal conformity other than their own good sense, education, and conscience.

However, Greg's points about those who are paid staff members of a more corporate religious organization (that would eventually make one unemployable elsewhere and thus totally dependent on the org) who are unable to speak or even change their minds (publicly anyway) are very much on the mark in my view.

By the way, I do not make my living from Buddhism. So I am not a "professional Buddhist" at all - more of an amature scholar and a part-time (though fully ordained) minister.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

This idea of professional Buddhists was taken up as early as the second Buddhist council. One group felt it was Ok to accept monetary donations and the other group felt it was not. Guess who won out? Right, those who argued for accepting money won out after bribing? the groups from the west, north, and the local monks(hehe). Anyway the group who argued against taking money were banished, ended up in Kashmir and became the Sarvisthatins. The money accepting monks became the Madhamikans led by Mahadeva who persecuted the non accepting group. Nichiren had only disdain for Mahadeva contrary to what Ikeda wrote lavishing praise on him (double hehe). Funny, but it is more likely that Mahayana arose from the influence of the Sarvasthatins in Kashmir. I think this is one reason Nichiren said a true priest should live a very modest existence(just like the President and vice presidents of the SGI). HOHO

Mark

Greg, I was agreeing that if you trimmmed off the culty bits you were left with something worth having. Which seemed to me to be main theme.

"Those who chant with a correct faith and practice will always be protected and will never wont for food, clothing, and shelter."

I must say I find that highly suspicious.