Nikken's motives versus Ikeda's

In July 1998 I tried to defend the Gakkai from a post by Roy Boyce at Dejanews. The discussion has haunted me since then. Roy Boyce died in June of 2003. Somehow I doubt he reached enlightenment, but I also doubt his death was too awful either. He was a lawyer and a parishioner of Myozenji temple. I was at the time I discussed this subject with him a loyal member of SGI. Nikken is the sixty-seventh High Priest of Nichiren Shoshu. Ikeda is the "honorary President" of the Sokagakkai and President of SGI.

The late Roy Boyce wrote:

Original article [email protected](see boyce.txt);

I had written(from a post in 1998 to Dejanews):

I can agree with you that Nikken definately did not attack the Gakkai just to get more money. It seems to be that the attack is much more personal in nature than mere money. It seems that Nichiren Shoshu feared the power of all those members to eventually force real reforms on them, and that Nikken was angered by the adulation that was sent Ikeda's way. I noticed at the time that his attack came just as Ikeda was leading the way towards reforming the leadership and practices of the Gakkai towards a more family and humanistic approach. The specific cause of the break was a speach in which Ikeda had the temerity to criticize the priesthood for posturing while at the same time marrying, making babies, playing golf. He also, and this seems to have really ticked off Nikken, had the temerity to criticize some of the lectures of Nikken as being - shall we say - boring. Now these are the kind of criticisms that would lead to a shouting match, a major row, or an argument, in most marriages. However with the Gakkai, and Nichiren Shoshu, they led to pyrotechnics and divorce procedings.

R. Boyce writes: My Response

This consists entirely of speculation, conjecture, innuendo and surmise, unsupported by evidence. However, there is ample evidence that the split was the outcome of Daisaku Ikeda's resentment at having been, from his point of view, "beaten" by the priesthood over a decade earlier.

(writing in 2001 and again in 2003) I have to concede that Mr. Boyce was making a cogent point. Since 2000 we have seen more and more of Ikedas own articles and opinion pieces translated. If you read what President Ikeda writes in his retrospectives (see Resignation.html) and what he writes later on about that resignation in retrospective, such as is captured in his Stormy April Article, one begins to realize that he was preparing an "Uchi-Ichi" or Revengeful "come-back" possibly from the moment he resigned. Indeed there was a lot of anger and a determination that the Gakkai would eventually "stand up" to the priests that was shared by all the leaders "in the know". However, even if President Ikeda's 35th anniversary speech was designed to goad the priests into a rash decision, the point I made in my paragraph still stands. It is obvious that there were deeper issues underlying the spit than either mans' personal feelings.

Mr. Boyce quotes:

In the most egregious statement in the November 1990 speech, Ikeda stated:

"The 50th anniversary, in the midst of defeat, betrayed, embattled --- and then I was made to resign as President. Treated terribly by the priesthood and by the Shoshinkai --- made a fool of. And on top of this, Mr. Hojo says, 'Well, the future is pitch black, isn't it?' [to which Ikeda replied] 'What are you talking about? Look to the 60th anniversary. Such dazzling, superb fruits there. The 60th anniversary is coming up, so show some spirit. That's what it is to be President. I'm the Honorary President.' [to which Hojo replied] 'Is that so?' What an ass. I tell you--not fighting --- and [I'm] leaning on --- who? Really ---"

This statement reflects only that Ikeda's attitude in 1980 (the 50th anniversary) was one of personal frustration, malice and lust for revenge. It suggests that the only reason Ikeda didn't move against the priesthood at the time was that he was afraid he couldn't win and accordingly he backed off, while deceptively laying plans to extract his revenge at "the 60th anniversary", which was 1990, which was when he in fact did act.

Of course the Gakkai sees these opinions in keeping with the notion that President Ikeda was wronged in 1978/1980. But in retrospect, it does look like the Gakkai wasn't entirely innocent in the way it provoked the priests. We seem to have known exactly how they would react to criticism and maybe even wanted a fight. There is a consistency to all this which is in keeping with Japanese ways but not necessarly with Buddhism. When Toda was wronged during World War II and he later sought revenge during the Ogasawara incident it was forty seven youth division who "punished" that chief priest. The idea of laying low until the "time is right" seems to be a tradition of guerrilla movements everywhere, and it is pretty obvious that in retrospect President Ikeda wasn't very sorry in 1978 at all. I'm sorry to think this. I know the Gakkai had committed excesses then and I thought they were sincere when they gave the study meetings on the subjects throughout the late 70's and early 80's. Go figure!

More recently, in an article by Daisaku Ikeda (The stormy April essay) (writing under his pen name Ho Gaku) printed in the May 15, 1998, World Tribune, p. 9, recounting events surrounding the May 3, 1979, Soka Gakkai ("SG") Headquarters General Meeting, Ikeda first notes (I have this article at this address: STORMYAPRIL24.htm:

"A few days prior to May 3, 1979, I resigned the presidency and became honorary president of the Soka Gakkai. Behind this were the schemes of a group of conspirators -- a union of treacherous members and priests who wished to drive me out and, once the Soka Gakkai had no true leader for kosen-rufu, to manipulate the organization for their own profit." Ikeda next recounts that the meeting took place ". . . in the midst of a firestorm of insult and defamation that can only be described as pure madness. The top leaders of the Soka Gakkai could not conceal their uncertainty and anxiety. They were hesitant and restrained in their applause for me -- out of fear of incurring the displeasure of the priests present [which I believe included the then High Priest Nittatsu Shonin]. It was a sad sight indeed. No, it was pitiful." (paragraph break omitted).

Roy goes on:

Ikeda next indicates that after leaving the meeting, he saw a group of teary-eyed women who called out to him "Sensei, Sensei." He says: "And I thought: 'Now, who will protect members such as these good people? Who will work for their happiness? What will happen if cruel and heartless animals dressed in priestly robes begin to dictate to these people?"< Then, Ikeda says, he went to the Kanagawa Culture Center in Yokohama, indicating that he had decided to"begin a new struggle" from there.

Of course we know that President Ikeda did indeed strengthen the Sokagakkai international and won his way into the hearts of the members with reforms (and promises of reforms) of the Gakkai.

Then Roy says:

He further states: "On May 5, picturing my mentor's face, I wrote down my pledge as a piece of calligraphy. I wrote the single word 'Justice.' In the margin next to it, I wrote, 'I will carry the banner of justice alone.' I knew that my real struggle was only beginning. Whatever circumstances I found myself in, I would fight resolutely. Even if I was alone. I firmly resolved in the depths of my being that I would triumph -- in the true spirit of the oneness of mentor and disciple." (paragraph breaks omitted). He also indicates: "My vow that day, to take the lead in opening the second chapter of the kosenrufu movement -- to draw the sword of the Law, the jeweled sword of faith, and with it cut through all adversity and triumph over evil without fail -- was the deepest of commitments."

It is reasonable to conclude from the foregoing that Ikeda formed a specific intent to extract revenge upon the priesthood at least as early as May, 1979, as a result of his perceived defeat at that time. It should be noted especially that, at that time, Nittatsu Shonin was the High Priest. Evidently, Ikeda's plans were not based on the personality or conduct of the present High Priest. Rather, Ikeda hated Nittatsu Shonin as much as he now hates Nikken Shonin.

I originally wrote: "Actually, I don't think this is a matter of hate. President Ikeda had been "brought down" by betrayals by his syncophantic followers, Nittatsu's followers (most of whom became the "shoshinkai") and a variety of schemers and plotters. I doubt he had any love for Nittatsu shonin at that point, but I doubt he hated him either. Nittatsu was very old and died soon after this incident. President Ikeda knew that the priests would have expelled him and the Sokagakkai at that point unless he did something to stop them. He probably had the model of the 47 Ronin on his mind. Yes, he sought some sort of vindication. and yes it seems that that vindication would mean exposing the faults and presumption of the priests. Thus I would argue that Ikeda's intent came from a concern for the members. However, he does talk in terms of revenge, and that is unsettling. It may be very Japanese and very human, but it isn't Buddhist.

Of Course Roy Boyce is going to argue differently:

One can argue, I suppose, about whether Ikeda's intent proceeded from a concern for members or from malice at the mistreatment he felt he suffered at the hands of not only traitors and priests -- but even his own underbosses who, due to cowardice, failed to give him the volume of applause to which he felt entitled. As I read it, Ikeda's rhetoric reeks with malice and the concern for the members part is merely propaganda.

Unfortunately Roy Boyce seems to have been more write then me. This is what I wrote later:

Writing in 2001: It wasn't just applause that was needed. What should have been done was to make a stance on "truth and justice" which would mean standing up for the "Dharma." When you stick together it's to uphold principle, not to look out for any particular person. I actually think that President Hojo was right to admonish President Ikeda that his resignation was a matter of the "times." Hojo was also right to predict the split with Nichiren Shoshu. At the time I read the essay Stormy April I thought his essay was imbued with compassion. But the problem is that there is a fine line between compassion and protective feelings towards one group and malice towards those who are outside that group. I suggest that the malice comes from the way that his dreams, the organizational dreams, and the happiness of the members was affected by all of that politics. At the time the events were very dispiriting. Most of us learned positive things from them, but many people left the Gakkai at that time. This happened both here in the USA and in Japan. My own feeling is that such "evil moments" are rarely the result of someone who is conscious of "malice." Anger at injustice can lead to self righteous victimization just as easilly as less noble moments. Most truly evil people have a permanent sense that they and the groups they lead are victims and potential victims of some sort of enemies. President Ikeda is not such a truly evil person, but this issue is a truly "evil" issue because it is something that is introducing poison into the relationships of both groups and is preventing people from "going" deeper in their study and practice of Buddhism.

R. Boyce continued:

Finally, despite Ikeda's dramatic rhetoric about carrying the banner of justice and drawing the sword of the Law, it appears that Ikeda in fact implemented his determination through a sneaky, ten year plot. Perhaps in his dreams Ikeda is a hero on a white horse boldly executing a Napoleonic cavalry charge. In reality, he is a shadowy conspirator who is only capable of tactics based on deception and treachery.

(writing in 2001) Mr. Boyce, Napoleon was a crafty warrior, but in his politics he was less competant and in reality he was rarely to be found on a white horse. He was brought down because he started to believe the words of his syncophants and admirers. I don't know about President Ikeda's motives. But I think that the priesthood was stuck in a stodgy and parochial interpretation of Nichirens teachings and that a universal world religion cannot benefit mankind with such an attitude. We already have one Catholic Church, why would we want another one? As to the rest, if you are right that he is sneaky and shadowy, then the result is that eventually all our ideals will be betrayed. Napoleon met his waterloo because of his Hubris expressed in invading Russia without proper preparation or listening to advice.

Returning to the November 16, 1990, speech, Chris indicates that Ikeda called the High Priest's sermons "boring." This is presumably a reference to the following statement made in Ikeda's speech: "And what if I hear another one of these difficult doctrines? I don't understand it at all. No one understands it. .. It's like listening to German." Thus, Ikeda did not say that the sermons where "boring" but that they were too difficult. Of course, the Daishonin often emphasized that the profound doctrines of True Buddhism are difficult to understand and difficult to believe. The SGI, however, specializes in dumbed-down, fast food MacBuddhism.

Unfortunately Mr. Boyce (was)is half right. Many Buddhists prefer watered down doctrines and interpretations of later days over real Buddhist teachings. I'm finding that even NST doctrines are distorted from what Nichiren actually taught and from the context of their times. Moderns assume that because the forms of Buddhism have become decrepid that the religious ideas themselves are also decrepid. But while the ideas became decrepid, that was because of the people embracing them, not the validity of the ideas themselves. Everything that Nichiren taught was consistent with the sutras. That is what made him unique. We are wrong to replace True buddhist teachings with any modern interpretation whether from a self-written hagiography or misquotes from the Gosho. The problem with Nikken's sermons was not that they were "deep" or "difficult" but that he tries sometimes to dazzle people with his BS and befuddle them with terminology. This is a common fault of people in love with ideas. I do it sometimes. From what I've seen the quality of his sermons has improved since the split. So I think he actually got the message.

Roy writes

When the SG finally responded to the priesthood's questions concerning Ikeda's statement in a January 1, 1991, letter from SG President Akiya, the only explanation offered was:

"The indicated statement of the Honorary President described the speech and conduct of the already expelled Shoshinkai who look down on and deride believers, and was not a description of the current priesthood."

The Youth Division of Japan and President Akiya have good transcripts of that speach. The only transcript we have is from Nichiren Shoshu itself (and some sanitized versions in the World Tribune from around that time). I have no idea whether or not President Ikeda actually said what is attributed to him. But I suspect he might have and the Gakkai didn't want to admit it because it was a rude thing to say.

Mr Boyce replied to me:

In contending that the statement was in fact intended to suggest that the High Priest's sermons are "boring," Chris merely serves to prove that Akiya's explanation was a lie.

Writing in 2003, I realize that he was right on this point. At the time I wrote that my statement didn't prove anything. That, I didn't even have any copy of the speech except the one provided by Nichiren Shoshu. I concluded "If the Gakkai still denies that he said that I don't know if, in fact, P. Akiya is lying or not. We may never know the "real facts." Of course the failure to provide a copy of the speech is a pretty hefty clue.

To read more follow any of the embedded links

back to index.html more on Nikken Shonin More on issues within the SGI.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws