Talk:Nichiren Buddhism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nichiren's voice missing?

Is it just me, or is Nichiren's voice oddly missing from this article? I hear nothing of his spirit - he argued strongly for the absolute power and integrity of each human being, for the great message of the Lotus Sutra which said that all human beings are equally endowed with the potential for Buddhahood -- yet all that is written here is that he opposed the various exisitng schools. There was a reason for this. What was it? - R --68.45.57.193 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi R. In the second sentence of the section Doctrine and practices, the article says "For example, as in Tendai but in contrast to many other Buddhist schools, most Nichiren Buddhists believe that personal enlightenment can be achieved in this world within the practitioner's current lifetime." This is a reference to sokushin jōbutsu, the concept that the Buddha Nature is inherent in all beings, and therefore all people have the potential to attain Buddhahood in their present form in their current lifetime. Do you think it needs to be stated more clearly? (Personally, I think the "in their current form" part needs more emphasis.) Jersey_Jim 12:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This really is the fundamental difference between Nichiren and other forms of Buddhism, and also between Shakyamuni's earlier teachings and that of the Lotus Sutra. And, really, it is at the core of the split between SGI and Nichiren Shoshu -- the former was holding to this point, while the latter, at least from SGIs perspective, was moving farther and farther away from that view, (by actively inserting a priesthood between the individual and his/her ability to attain enlightenment, and ascribing exceptional powers to the Dai Gohonzon). Perhaps non-Buddhists won't get the significance, but those who study Buddhism will recognize it. And for SGI vs Nichiren Shoshu people, this is really where it comes down to it - each of us must read Nichiren and try to understand - did he *mean* it when he said:

"...if you think the Law is outside yourself, you are em-bracing not the Mystic Law but an inferior teaching. "Inferior teaching" means those other than this [Lotus] sutra, which are all expedient and pro-visional. ...

"You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha's lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself..."

"...If you seek enlight-enment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain. - On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime WND p.3

and:

"Whether or not your prayer is answered will depend on your faith; [if it is not] I will in no way be to blame." - Letter to Lay Nun Nichigon, WND p.1079

If we believe in what Nichiren taught, then we cannot accept anyone else's attempt to insert anything or anyone between us and our enlightenment. Seems simple. No? SO yes, I think this point should be emphasized. - R--70.111.27.59 08:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the place for the voice of a religious figure. The assumption that Nichiren's voice need be present seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the purpose of this website. Recommend deletion? Nickevant (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Importance of the Intro Section

Catflap, please read about the LEAD SECTION of articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section (sometimes called the Intro Section), which requires sufficient information about the article. Intro Section requires a concise overview of the subject:

“The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points…” Applying this to the article of Nichiren Buddhism, the Intro must include reference to what is the main teaching of Nichiren Buddhism, what is its core and its schools. Such info will b of course detailed in a later text, however, general mention of the teachings which distinguish Nichiren Buddhism must be included as a “stand alone” concise summary or overview. It is also appreciated if you’d discuss the changes you intend to suggest deletion, and why - in your opinion - mention of the basic teaching of Nichiren Buddhism should not be included in the Intro. Many thanks.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes its an introdution not a definition. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan, the paragraph removed by Catflap08 has no place in the leading section, though it could definitely be expanded somehow. I'll give it a go.126.25.72.25 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan, the line you added to the leading paragraph is fine and does, I suppose, make the article more balanced, but you need a proper WP:RS to support it. A keynote address held at the Soka University is not a good enough - if the claim is made by an adherent to Nichiren Buddhism, it's of no value whatsoever to Wikipedia. It's not WP:NPOV. I've removed the source and instead added a "citation-needed" tag. I hope you will provide one, or I will eventually remove the phrase. 126.25.72.25 (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan, it is most of all inappropriate to again and again enter into a proselytising mode. Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism have no right to claim sole representation of the Lotus Sutra and to what it teaches – there does exist an article on the Lotus Sutra already. The Lotus Sutra is fundamental to Nichiren Buddhism that’s about it as some denominations within Nichiren Buddhism DO study other Sutras too- just as Nichiren did. “Nichiren Buddhists believe that the spread of Nichiren's teachings and their effect on practitioners' lives will eventually bring about a peaceful, just, and prosperous society.” This sentence again is a sweeping statement that could well be placed in a brochure of many but yet again not all Nichiren Buddhist traditions. This article is general not specific by nature.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bodhisattva is not a doctrine but a concept. The idea of a so called world citizenship is to my knowledge upheld only in Soka Gakkai. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is truly unwise, Catflap, to say that: " Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism have no right to claim....". Among the many mistakes and judgments you make, your giving permission to Nichiren to say what he said - or deny his right to say what he already said, this is utterly unwise for you to claim. The text which you disliked and deleted was that ACCORDING to Nichiren, the Lotus Sutra is the direct path to enlightenment, etc. That is according to him. Whether you like this, agree or not, you have to accept that this was his opinion. Maybe you are more knowledgeable than him about the subject and various sutras, but please accept that a document written by Nichiren(the Gosho) is a historical document and you have no right to delete what that document said about the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Buddhism is based on the Lotus Sutra as the main primary teaching and you have to accept this and return what you unwisely deleted because you don't "give the right" to Nichiren to say what he said!!SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Future edits

The „Non-violence in Nichiren Buddhism“ is completly out of context. After comparison with neutral sources parts of the „Reception of Nichiren Buddhism“ section shall be made part of the „Development of Nichiren Buddhism and major lineages“ section. The Sado exile has already been mentioned in other parts of the article. The article should be as general as possible. Different or specific points of view concerning the development of Nichiren Buddhism should be stated in articles of respective schools.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

     I agree with the above. Nickevant (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Non-Violence section is important because it is an essential teaching of Nichiren. The intro makes reference implying that Nichiren Buddhism is militant and nationalistic etc... The Intro mistakenly - and this will be changed in the future - associates Nichiren Buddhism with nationalism, the war and so forth - and this is not true for all Nichiren Buddhists, neither for the basic teachings of Nichiren himself. Non-violence is a basic part of Nichiren teachings, and again you have no right to question the teachings, you may dislike or disagree, but what was established over 700 years ago as an essential part of the teachings must be regarded as a fact.

Editors in Wikipedia do not set rules, they follow rules. When you say something "should be stated in " other articles, you are teaching others what should and should not. To make an article a skeleton ( by your claim to make it general) - and tell readers to go to other articles to read what you don't want to appear here, this is questionable. The whole editing will be changed again and again and again until the article has meaningful information.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan - "The whole editing will be changed again and again and again until the article has meaningful information." Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? It's an official policy. 126.25.72.25 (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean internal agreement between biased editors to violate Wikipedia guidelines. Please read the following carefully:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section (sometimes called the Intro Section), which requires sufficient information about the article. Intro Section requires a concise overview of the subject:

“The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points…” Applying this to the article of Nichiren Buddhism, the Intro must include reference to what is the main teaching of Nichiren Buddhism, what is its core, what distinguish it from other schools and what sects claim adherence to this Buddhism. The opinion of critics as Nichiren Buddhism being militant or nationalistic is welcome in Perception section, not in Intro. There must be also sufficient info to include other studies on these perceptive matters. There is already a consensus that Nichiren Buddhism is a controversial subject and for this reason the article should include all these conflicting perspectives, not just one skeletal and incorrectly placed perception.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, the fact that Nichiren has been militant and nationalistic (which isn't merely an opinion of "critics") is not only relevant in a "perception" section but precisely an important example of what "distinguishes it from other schools and sects". That's why it belongs in the lead, though balancing that with something on how this is not necessarily true for the sect's modern form would be very welcome.126.25.72.25 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" (my emphasis) Kiruning (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Very well then, when I will have time I will change the Lead Section to accord with Wiki guideline. The current one does not. The current Intro violates the principle of neutrality and non-bias, citing only one controversial and questionable view. Adding other perspectives to the Intro to make it in accord with non-bias - this will lengthen the text and will therefore make it more rich. What you mention about Nichiren being militant contradicts the fact that he was subjected to enormous violence, attacked with swords, was about to be beheaded while he advocated non-violence, therefore the terms militant is a fabrication. This will be also stated.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what's a fabrication or not. Kiruning (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorporated parts of the text into historic context and deleted non-violence section as Buddhism in general is not perceived as being extremely violent so why bother. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When the time comes, you'll find a better article. No matter how you avoid truths and justify deletion of what you do not like, this is futile. Making the article skeleton-miserable is a good start to re-create it and enrich it later, but there is no hurry. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Now thats interesting since I included a quote by a scholar who is also an SGIist. At least he does not deny historic facts and compares it to today’s Nichiren Buddhism. You still do not realise that this is a general article on Nichiren Buddhism it is not the right place to interpret Nichiren Buddhism as that should be done in articles of respective Nichiren schools. There is an article where this is much more suitable.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Concern about sourcing

There are many schools of Nichiren Buddhism with highly divergent teachings. Japanese Wikipedia in fact says that these schools have nothing in common with each other. I think we should remove anything here written by a member of one school claiming to describe the beliefs of all "true" Nichiren schools, especially SGI sources. Shii (tock) 15:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a problem I had for a very long time. My edits were concerned with historic developments for the most part. There are some basic practices that 'most' schools share and that's about it I would say. Even the definition of what a Gohonzon is varies. In my opinion this paragraph should go "In addition to the two main teachings of chanting and the Gohonzon, Nichiren Buddhism expounds the doctrine of the Ten Worlds of life, The Ten Factors of existence, the principle of The Three Thousand Realms in a single moment of life [12][13] and the teachings of The Three Proofs[14] for verification of the validity of teachings. All of these teachings are shared and identical in most schools and groups of Nichiren Buddhism, however, different interpretations are found for the doctrine of the ”Three Great Secret Dharmas”,[15] called also “The Three Great Secret Laws”,[16] and Three Jewels." --Catflap08 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The extensive quote from "Fire in the Lotus" is not encyclopedic. Did Safwan put it there? Shii (tock) 16:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I doubt Safwan read Fire in the Lotus, its the only book that explains (explained) the history of Nichiren Buddhism in an unbiased way actually. Over all I agree to your changes but would add what used to be in the introduction into the main text dealing with history. The nationalist issue often comes up in literature, Dr. Stone published lengthy articles about that issue so not mentioning it would be mistaken - in some respect its the dark side of Nichiren Buddhism, that some would not like to see mentioned --Catflap08 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually Nichirenism probably has links to modern lay groups like Soka Gakkai and the others. It should be placed in a more extensive history section, and then it can be mentioned in the lede. But you can't just put it in the first paragraph without giving a longer explanation later on in the article. Shii (tock) 20:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that would link to the evangelical issue you deleted.Its really a tricky matter without triggering an edit war. Nichirenism is an issue that Nichiren Buddhism has been faced with. I will try to elaborate on this within this week at some point. But we can not leave it unmentioned at this point.For that reason I added in last section of the historical overview.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead section needs to be rewritten

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary (!) of its most important aspects" ( see: [MOS:LEAD]).

The lead of this article (2/3) contains information about Nichiren inspired Nationalism and Nichiren’s view of the relationship between state and religion which is not part of the main text. This lead is definitely no summary of the article and needs to be rewritten. JimRenge (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Reinserted parts of Intro that was deleted. Three sentences on Nichiren inspired Nationalism. Relationship to state mentioned in main text in respect to Fuju-Fuse.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead is still no summary of the article. Please read MOS:LEAD and please do not delete the "lead rewrite" tag before you have reached a consensus. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not wait for consensus when inserting the tag. Please state what is missing.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in the body the article.

I think it might be helpful to get more opinions on this problem. JimRenge (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well in the latest change I reinserted an old intro. By now all major issues are in the introduction. What more. We already had a discussion about the nationalistic issues as some editors did not want to see it full stop to what the majority of editors were against. Sufficient interwiki links are also included. Since Nationalism and Nichirenism are often mentioned in other resources it might be useful to introduce an additional section. But by no means should it be deleted from the introduction as user Kirunning has already explained further up.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no section in the article about nationalism so I had to remove the paragraph about nationalism in the lede. Nichirenism is not the same as Nichiren Buddhism so I think it will be hard to have an extensive discussion of it here. Shii (tock) 16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding, I have asked for a 3rd opinion maybe a neutral editor can help. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I did not see Shii s comment. I will cancel the request for 3rd opinion. JimRenge (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No misunderstaning. A shortened version about Nichiren inspired Nationalism is now part of the main article another ref will be added.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Shii! I think your edit improved the lead. It is much shorter now and reflects the content of the article.

Catflap, this seemed to be a misunderstanding: I have no problem with mentioning nationalist reinterpretations of Nichiren during the Meiji and WW2 but please do not inflate it. The Nichirenism article would profit very much, if you could add more details. JimRenge (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I asked Shii to have his input on the article. As mentioned Nichirenism is an issue some would like to ignore - even when part of their own history. Finding English references is the problem here but stays on my list. I would welcome any input of editors speaking Japanese on that issue. The inflation developed due to the fact that one editor was in complete denial that this issue does exist.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

For the records: I was not this "one editor" who denied this issue. If you suspect me of denial you may look at the "view history" section of Senoo Giro. I supplemented the article with a section on Propagation of Nichirenism and added a reference to Gerald Iguchi, Nichirenism as Modernism: Imperialism, Fascism, and Buddhism in Modern Japan (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of California, San Diego, 2006. (Girō Seno’o and overcoming Nichirenism pp. 175-230) which may be useful in your research into Nichirenism, JimRenge (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh no rest assured I did not indicate at you. Me and some other editors have an issue with another editor on the Soka Gakkai article. So no worries.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment We had a better lead anytime before? May i see the diff? Noteswork (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Basic Teachings?

I think most encyclopaedia readers would look to this paragraph for the answers they were seeking. Unfortunately, there is little here of any help at present. The key unanswered question is the difference between Tendai (which subscribes for the most part to "...is generally noted for its focus on the Lotus Sutra and an attendant belief that all people have an innate Buddha nature and are therefore inherently capable of attaining enlightenment in their current form and present lifetime". and Nichiren Buddhism? why did Nichiren break with Tendai? Surely the difference is more than just the chanting?

He regarded the syncretic Tendai school, with its integration of esoteric teachings, as a deviation from Zhiyi's original Tiantai and the Saddharma, transmitted in the Lotus Sutra. He propagated Lotus exclusivism in contrast to Tendai syncretism. JimRenge (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well in my books the most important issue is hat even though Nichiren struggled with Tendai, it is not recorded that he „broke“ with Tendai. He was an ordained Tendai priest and died as such, he officially never even founded a new school. At any rate Wikipedia is not a discussion platform. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Major Nichiren Buddhist schools and organisations

For a better readability I listed the schools and organisations in alphabetical order. A while ago I inserted two blocks in the section of movements and lay organisations that differentiated between Nichiren Shu and Nichiren Shoshu derived groups, this is not true for all groups though. The term ‘school’ in Buddhism is normally used for traditional schools of thought i.e. monastic based or led by clergy. The term Buddhist movement or lay organisation is self-explanatory, at times it overlaps with groups mentioned in the article on Japanese new religions.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhist Association of America

Does that organisation really exist?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.nichirenbuddhism.net/
• http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/31-1768558/nichiren-buddhist-association-america.aspx

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Expelled / Excommunicated

We have already discussed the issue. Fact is that repeating the notion that all of SG/SGI was expelled in 1991 is WRONG. In 1991 it was Mr. Ikeda and SG leadership in 1997 the whole of SGI. The wording of the article is in this point false and misleading.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Starrynuit I would suggest that we come to a somewhat alternative wording in this case. It is simply incorrect to state that SG as whole was expelled (or as you say excommunicated) in 1991. I myself was a time witness of the events and I am no longer a member of any of the two parties involved having said that this does not count as a source. Simply by adding references that simply record your view of the events does not support what took place. Adding Nichiren Shoshu sources would make it balanced, and I hate to say, would reflect the historic chain of events. In 1991 only a small number of leaders surrounding Mr. Ikeda were expelled and in 1997 all those who were regarded members/adherents of SG and who did not register with a Nichiren Shoshu temple were expelled/excommunicated as adherents of Nichiren Shoshu and no more allowed to enter the temple grounds of Taiseki-Ji. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is right here, and the issue has been discussed, rather extensively, before. Basically, the apparent consensus from the earlier discussions was that the "average" SG members were basically apostates from NB through 1997, with only the leaders officially disallowed from taking part at Nichiren temple activities, roughly approximating excommunication. Like in most such cases, the group from which people were apostates gave them a chance to return, for some time, in this case about 6 years, before basically acknowledging the situation and no longer allowing them on the temple grounds. Granted, apostasy and excommunication are both basically Western terms, and maybe not the best terms to use in this instance, but maybe saying something like the "average" SG members withdrew from taking part in NB temple activities starting in 1991, with those who refused to register at NB temples having their privileges at the temples revoked in 1997, might be the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In general it was portrayed as if all SG-members were expelled from 1991 onwards I admit to that, but it was not until 1997 all of SG were regarded not to be adherents of NST anymore. We could go through the whole exercise of adding references and so forth but it will not change the historic and documented chain of events. So please Starrynuit go back to the drawing board. It is up to NST who to admit to temple grounds. We did not like it at the time and given your edits I have severe doubts that you witnessed the event. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to leave this here before the IBAN discussion is closed: it's useless to talk about "consensus" among Wikipedians being that such and such was the case, unless there are reliable sources that actually say so. Catflap08's last edit to the article replaced a sourced statement with an unsourced one. If there are sources for the claim that only the leadership was excommunicated in 1991 and the rest were not until 1997, then these sources need to be added to the article. And they need to actually say this specifically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The chronology of events, hence the inserted references, is a fact. This dispute lead to highly emotional and aggressive laden conflicts on BOTH sides. SGI has its views, NST its own. Fact however is that ALL SG members were officially not effected by the so called excommunication until 1997. As said before ALL information should be presented to the reader and based on that being enabled to form an opinion, but not to influence the reader. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedians are not supposed to talk about "facts" -- you need to cite sources. Of the four sources you added here three are print sources I don't have access to, but two of those are from 1992 and 1994, and the one online source doesn't say anything about SGI members being expelled in 1997: it says they were excommunicated in 1991. It can easily be assumed that the 1992 and 1994 sources say the same thing. Is the actual source for your claim Strand's Waking the Buddha (2014, Middleway Press)? Then you have to remove the others that don't support your claim. I'm done here. Seeya. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

1991 Expulsion sources

Not sure why it's so important to some to insist SGI wasn't :expelled" in 1991, but, WIW: To support the statment "The process of SG/SGI being excluded from Nichiren Shoshu started in 1991, affecting high ranking SG leaders first, and in 1997 all SG/SGI adherents were expelled" there is an array of 8 footnotes. None of them say it was ony te leadership that was expelled in 1991. To wit:

31) Ikeda timeline: “1991 November 28th - Nichiren Shoshu excommunicates SGI membership” 32) Metraux in the JJRS, 1992 19/4 pp. 328, 330: “At the end of November 1991 Taiseki-ji formally excommunicated the Soka Gakkai and its affiliated international chapters.” (328); “..from Nichiren Shoshu’s Written Notice of Excommunicating to Soka Gakkai 1991” (330) 34) Strand pp. 149-150: Doesn’t really address it, except obliquely – calls Nov November 28, 1991 SG’s Day of Spiritual Independence, “the anniversary of its excommunication by Nichiren Shoshu” 35) Nichiren.cm: November 1991 “Nichiren Shoshu issued “Order of Dissolution” and “Notice of Excommunication” to the Soka Gakkai.” 36) Myokan-ko.nt: “…culminated in their excommunication from Nichiren Shoshu in 1997”. Taisekiji site, actually a sick list of misfortunes that befell SG members. 37) Chronology by Youthful Priests: actually the same site as 35 38) Chronology according to Nichiren Shoshu: “After excommunicating the Soka Gakkai organization, Nichiren Shoshu made continuous efforts to guide compassionately the Gakkai members back to the correct path of faith”. But “For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers”.

Only the last one (from Nichiren Shoshu) hints that individuals were not expelled in 1991 (but of course the question then is, Hw do yu expel an organization but not the people in it?), but even that one doesn't say only "high ranking leaders" were affected. I would propose dropping ll the references except #38, and changing the wording of the statement to "The organization, but not the people in it, were expelled in 1991, and the people in it were then expeled in 1997," Or something like that.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Since it has been a month and there has been no objection, I made the change. Also added a reference to the SG expelling NS doctrine from its own.--Daveler16 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess the difference of views on this subject can be found in official documents by the organisation who expelled certain individuals on a certain date. A few year later this organisation expelled all those still affiliated with certain individuals expelled on that date. A organisation like SGI tries to rewrite the chain of events as members of SGI “felt” expelled because their dear leader(s) was (were) expelled. It’s nice to see how Wikipedia gives way to sectarian propaganda though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.221.156 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nichiren exclusivism

I added a "citation needed" tag after the sentence in the lead: "It is vigorously opposed to any other forms of Buddhism or religious beliefs, which Nichiren saw as expired teachings deviating from the Buddhist truth he had discovered."

I know that this is a commonly held POV but does that make it a fact? I think the Stone article "Rebuking the Enemies of the Lotus: Nichirenist Exclusivism in Historical Perspective" gives a much more nuanced account from the historical and more recent perspective. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@BrandenburgG: Thank you for posting the Stone article. Do you have full citation information for it, or a web link to a the journal itself?--Theodore Kloba (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @ Theodore Kloba. What I have is just from the heading of the journal article. Jacqueline Stone, "Rebuking the Enemies of the Lotus Nichirenist Exclusivism in Historical Perspective", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1994 21/2–3. The web link is right before your entry. BrandenburgG (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have done just a little editing where the need was fairly obvious (e.g., Soka Gakkai was never "within" Nichiren Shoshu -- that would be the Hokkeko or danto -- but has always been a separate organization once affiliated with NS) So I don't want to make any major additions without the cooperation of others here. The article seems mainly geared toward 1)the fact that there are many Nichiren sects and 2) their history of disagreements. There is but (125 words or so) section on "Basic Teachings". Yet Nichiren's teachings are currently being practiced as a very vital religion by millions of people around the world. Can we at least expand on the teachings section? I'm sure different schools value different concepts, and probably interpret them differently. But is sees like, for instance, the teaching that "earthly desires are enlightenment" and the "great vow" of "Bodhisattva of the Earth" -- among other things -- are very important to a good many people who might be looking Nichiren up on WP. Opinions? Tanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16:I think it is a good idea, but here is the challenge I see for editors on the "inside": Those of us who practice with one of the various Nichiren sects have exposure to the teachings mostly through that sect and and may not be aware of which teachings are universal across all Nichiren sects and which are specific to our own. I guess we first have to identify some good, neutral "overview" references so we don't get into OR. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theodore Kloba: I agree. In my clumsy way (I guess) I was asking for those conversant with the various approached to participate in expanding the Belief section. I have been able to find 3rd party sources for the Soka Gakkai (mainly) and Nichiren Shoshu (to a lesser extent, but still there) but not much on any of the others. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly disapprove on expanding the teachings section. If there is one thing that can be said about Nichiren-Buddhism, it is that there is just not ONE Nichiren Buddhist teaching. Most schools can only agree on the mantra they chant, that's all. The only other thing all these schools and organizations can agree on is their disagreement on what other groups believe to be the truth. The so-called “vital religion” practised “by millions of people around the world” is not one single denomination, and this should also be respected. This article seems very general in tone and I believe that to be a good thing, it quite nicely leads the reader to all groups that are covered in articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. If the article would give too much weight to adherents of a certain school or group it would be a disservice to the spirit of neutrality. I find it worrying enough that adherents of certain groups seem to have taken over the ownership in some articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.194.129 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the relationship between the SG and NST be clarified. The fact that Makiguchi did not join the Hokkeko is crucial.Ltdan43 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me where does the article imply that Makguchi was a member of Hokkeko Rengokai?? SGI was one of many organisations that once were affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu just like Shoshinkai, Kenshokai … the “divorces” have always been ugly. Believers in lay organisations affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu, were and, are primarily adherents of Nichiren Shoshu – does the term “gojukai” ring a bell? Nichiren Buddhism encompasses quite a few more topics than this. This article is about the whole of Nichiren Buddhism remaining to be neutral. The off springs of Nichiren Shoshu are in a broad sense a lesser issue, as Nichiren Shoshu is just a minor aspect within Nichiren Buddhism as a whole. You guys can certainly change this article – as you almost will, but facts will remain to be fact. It is also a fact that Makguchi first was introduced to Nichiren Buddhism via Tanaka Chigaku, he then, almost 10 years later joined, Nichiren Shoshu. Please do also familiarise yourself what the term “Hokkeko” meant within Nichiren Shoshu – lay believer. Nothing will change the fact that Ikeda and SGI were “kicked out” of Nichiren Shoshu … not the other way round – this was a fight between two ageing men – being Ikeda and the then High Priest. The neutral reader is looking for facts and, not the interpretation of facts … no mysteries, folklore and wishful thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.252.170 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

My point is simply this: this article is not about Nichiren Buddhism. It's about Nichiren Buddhist Sects. All we know about Nichiren's teachings is that there's something called "Gohonzon" and the sects disagree about it, and something called "3 jewels" and the sects disagree about that, too. There are other teachings besides those that have significance, not as subjects of theoretical argument, but as living principles in the lives of millions of people. This article should reflect that -- it could and should be much more than it is. Don't you think? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to speak for the millions of the group you are an adherent of, but you seem to forget millions of other Nichiren Buddhists you are certainly not entitled to speak for. This article sums up the very little that most sects, schools and organisations can agree on. Just like Tibetan Buddhism or Zen, Nichiren Buddhism is NOT one single teaching. You better expand the teaching section of articles you are familiar with or can you also speak for Nichiren Komon Shu, Nipponzan-Myohoji-Daisanga, Hokkeko Rengokai, Myochikai Kyodan, Reiyukai, Nichiren Shu, Bussho Gonenkai Kyodan … how many are there 20, 30 or over 40 schools, sects and groups? Just because the group you belong to is “considered” to be the largest lay group it does not result in Soka Gakkai, and its adherents, “owning” Nichiren Buddhism. This article does not even list all groups and schools. Have you studied the English gosho translations by Nichiren Shu for instance? Can you say in which temple the originals are kept? Do you know which of Nichirens writings are considered to be apocryphal and which are not? With all due respect to your faith and personal beliefs – this article only scratches on the surface of Nichiren Buddhism and adherents of Soka Gakkai are not usually not known to be well educated on Nichiren Buddhism in general, meaning in what other Nichiren Buddhists believe in, and why. As a reader I would hope that some editors would face the fact, that their objectivity is limited. Otherwise they risk, what is called, an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.244.81 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems you are assuming bad faith on the part of Daveler16. His affiliation with one sect does not necessarily render him incapable of editing and stewardship of this section effectively if he starts with appropriate references and follows Wikipedia policy. His comments above seem to indicate this is exactly his intention. Can you help by pointing to some references relating to the various issues you mention? I notice that the Nichiren article has a lengthier section on teachings (with references), yet points to this one as the "Main article". That seems to be an indication that this article section does need expansion. Theodore Kloba (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubting the ability for neutral input does not mean criticising the person. It just seems natural that when being exposed to one organisation and its teachings only, that one believes those teachings to be universal to Nichiren Buddhism. This is simply not the case though. Nichiren Buddhism has more to it than some might know - or are being told. Since Nichiren never founded a sect, this was done after his death, any greater description of his teachings would be best placed in the article about Nichiren himself. The only author who comes to my mind that covers Nichirens teachings without any baggage would be Dr. Stone and that’s a hefty read, good and free of sectarian stuff, but hefty. Her main work is “Original Enlightment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism”, which also puts Nichiren in the proper religious context. Montgomery, even though out of print, is a good read on history. Also the “Japanese Journal of Religious Studies” and various publications by Levi McLaughlin. The best Resources I found to be the ones NOT sold by bookshops of various schools and organisations. Do not forget that there is still a lot of Tendai in Nichiren Buddhism – to some Nichiren Buddhists those are provisional teachings, but traces of Tendai can still be found in the traditions of the oldest Nichiren School the Nichiren Shu, who also believe being in line with Nichirens exact words in terms of religious practise. Please keep in mind the birds eye view on such an issue and that is easier done when being unaffiliated which also corresponds to WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV. What individuals believe in is already covered in some Nichiren related articles even though some of them show a considerable lack of POV. As already mentioned above there just isn’t THE one Nichiren Buddhist teaching, otherwise there would not be so many schools and what have ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.139 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theodore Kloba:Thank you. The sect I belong to has a WP page; as an adherent, I'm not happy ith it, but as a WP editor, I think it's good if not perfect. I fail to see how, for instance, including "Nichiren taught that earthly desires are enlightenment" (with a short exegesis) would detract from the teachings f any sect -- it's an actual teaching of Nichiren, and to a great extent it's how his teachings are applied today -- which would make it meaningful to scholars, students and the curious (or so I would think). No sect has to be named as promoting it more than others; there need not be a comparison at all. Maybe I'll put something together in my sandbox so people can see what I mean. I'll post here if I do. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2017 (TC)

The term “earthly desires are enlightenment” is an extremely good example as this is mostly underlined by SGI and NST – also the orally transmitted teachings (Ongi Kuden) kick in here. It already starts with the term “are”, that some say should read “lead”, others suggest that “desires” means the cycle of birth and death. This leads to the Ongi Kuden, some believe in them, some consider them as a secondary source, and some regard them as made up and hence as forgery. So not much Pan-Nichiren-Buddhist-Agreement on that one either. Any endeavour on Nichirens teachings has to consider the history of the “Gosho” (“referred to as “Goibun” in Nichiren Shu at times) NST and SG adherents made a good job here. As far as I know most original letters are not even in the possession of NST-affiliated temples, but by the ones of Nichiren Shu. The titles of the text are basically made up (Since Nichiren never gave his letters a title) and at times do differ quite a bit considering which schools publishes the text and its translation into English. To find common ground in respect to the “Ongi Kuden” – no way, as no common ground exists. In some ways this puts NST, just as SG, into a somewhat uncomfortable situation as some of their teachings are based on the “Ongi Kuden” – being only orally transmitted there is no such guarantee that Nichiren ever said what is stated in them, this is crucial as such a great number of texts that he authored still do exist. It’s all very tricky and many aspects have to be considered. The example is good as it can only represent NST an SG, and with the emphasis given to it by them, but not Nichiren Buddhism as whole.

In the end you will go ahead and change the article anyways – so why discuss. There is always literature to turn to--2.247.254.46 (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

But that illustrates my initial point - why can't this adeticle be about Nichiren Buddhism, and not so much about disagreeents between Nichiren sects? Whether all the sects adopt a teaching or not, if Nichiren taught it, it ought to be mentioned. That would go for teachings any sect finds in his writings.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Even something that simple may still run into difficulty, since not all sects even agree on what things were written or taught by Nichiren. See, for example the lists at Nichiren#Important_writings. I still think it is worthwhile to expand the Basic Teachings section, though. I would suggest that if you mention a particular teaching that seems to be universal (or at least accepted by many schools), make a point of indicating which schools believe in that teaching and include references. It will never be "complete" but it can be better.Theodore Kloba (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thought: Don't forget that you needn't give every sect equal coverage, just its due weight.Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Even the basic teachings that are already mentioned in the text are not shared by all schools. It’s a bit bizarre to press an information into the article that does not exist in the sense that it is true, or universal, to all of Nichiren Buddhism. In that way the article perfectly shows that – there is no unity. It gives an insight into what Nichiren Buddhism is and what schools, sects and organisations it encompasses (all of which covered in Wikipedia are linked). It also describes the historic process, in a neutral manner, which presents us with what is today known as Nichiren Buddhism. Schools don’t even agree on what can be contributed to Nichiren himself and what not. SG and NST adherents for instance venerate Gohonzons that are not authored by Nichiren – others do though. In the article on Soka Gakkai great emphasis is given to its presidents and their teachings and accomplishments– as a start some should maybe focus on how much Nichiren Buddhism is in that group before trying to make bold assumptions being true for Nichiren Buddhism as a whole. A separate article for instance on the term “Gosho” or “Goibun” ,as used by some in Nichiren Buddhism, could shed some light on who accepts what writing being true and on what grounds – this is a tedious task in its own right though – which schools use goshos or goibun? It is not meant as an insult, but when engaged in one of those organisations and sects it’s hard not to press one’s own views when discussing “rival” groups. At some point one will realise that what SG and NST hold dear and true is anything but mainstream - compared to the rest of Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren Buddhims is not about number counting in terms of adherents for example. Amongst Nichiren Schools (as in “shu” for school) NST is not the largest anymore but Nichiren Shu.--2.247.252.223 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If one wants to challenge ahead and change this article based on due weight you should still keep in mind that one tries to superimpose an opinion that cannot stand against neutrality standards. The article as it is, is neutral. Please do bear in mind that whatever is written here may not stand academic standards. But, since SG has decided to organise itself in certain ways, especially outside of Japan, it should be noted that legally the number of its adherents/members are not millions, but thousands – at the most.--2.247.252.223 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I will soon (with9in a week, I hope) have something in the Sandbox for all to peruse. I'm basing it on 3rd party sources, academically respectable, some of which are used on other Nichiren-related articles on Wikipedia (not Nichiren sect related). Let me point out again that there is just one section I wish to add to - currently one of the smallest sections, but the only one that addresses "Nichren Buddhism" and not "Nichiren Buddhist Sects". I will let you know when I have a draft ready - and everyone can edit it! --Daveler16 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Faulty reference

Sorry I have not been able to get to the "Teachings" section in my Sandbox as I had hoped. Meanwhile, I question the statement in the Lede: "Its many denominations have in common a focus on the chanting and recital of the Lotus Sutra, believed by adherents to imbue good health and extraordinary strength". The reference cited is an edited anthology. 1) The editor is named, but not the author; 2) The page cited is about Scientology, not Buddhism; 3) Nowhere does it say that anyone believes "adhering" to Nichiren's teachings "imbues good health and extraordinary strength". Perhaps the editor who used this source could fix the statement and/or the footnote? Or the sentence could be deleted? (And, I assume of there's one misquoted source, there may be others). --Daveler16 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

In the article Faith in Buddhism#Lotus Sūtra there may be a few useful resources, among which statements to the effect that worship of the sutra is believed to give many benefits.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look at that entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Daveler16, you're welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since, after two weeks, there appear to be no objections, I went ahead and fixed the lede so it's statements match the cited references.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

New references in lede

I added some to the lede, based on a couple of new references I've discovered - one written in 1916 that makes no distinctions between sects that developed subsequent to Nichiren's life -- just concentrates on Nichiren. Certainly before any of the "new religions" existed.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Change Order?

Other religious entries I've looked at -- Christianity, Nichiren Shu, Islam, Nichiren Shoshu -- all have a section of beliefs. creed or practices before a section on the founder of the religion (a couple of them don't have a section on the founder of their religion). That, to me, makes sense as it is (I think) more likely someone will search WP to learn what a religion teaches, than thst someone will search a entry for a religion to find info on its founder -- since most founder-of-religion have their own entry. So how about moving the Teachings section above The Founder section? Or a least combining the two since they're both so short. Just a thought. And it would make this entry consistent with others on WP. --Daveler16 (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16, I don't agree. Just look at the title, "(1)Nichiren (2)Buddhism." That implies "Nichiren" should come first and "Buddhism" second. If the article's title were "Buddhism of Nichiren" or "Buddhism: Nichiren" or "Buddhism (Nichiren)" then you proposal might make sense. So I would recommend leaving it as it is.

But I see a much bigger problem with the article. The way it is currently written Nichiren Buddhism seems like a completely Japanese affair. As far as I know the first steps toward internationalization goes back to the 1893 Parliament of the World's Religions. The "Nichiren Sect" (now Nichiren Shu) was not invited to participate but it did submit a pamphlet written by its chief abbot at the time.

BrandenburgG (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrabdenburG: On your first point, why separate the two concepts? It's not "Nichiren and Buddhism". And that kind of relates to your second point: there is hardly anything about either Nichiren or Buddhism (or Nichiren Buddhism) in this article. Yes, more about Japanese internecine war platform, an article about competing small sects, rather than about the actual life or teachings of Nichiren. While I understand the importance of outlining the various schools and their development - that's 90% of the article, while "Nichiren Buddhism" is 4 short paragraphs. So on the whole, I think elevating and expanding the "Teachings" section, and expanding the "Founder" section -- or, my alternate suggestion, combining them --is valid. What do you (or anyone else?) think?--Daveler16 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16: I can't speak for others but I don't see how you are going to achieve a consensus about "Teachings" that can accommodate a wide range of schools and individual beliefs. It's a swamp. It seems to me that prior editors believed that the "Founder" section here has a different purpose than the good biography that is provided in the Nichiren article. Probably they thought "Founder" should related to "founding ideas": how they evolved and how he developed them. These two sections then flow from one to the other. But I don't see yet how they can be combined.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"It is vigorously opposed to any other forms of Buddhism or religious beliefs"

@TreasureIslandMediaBoss, thank you for your contributions here. I am wondering whether we can discuss "It is vigorously opposed to any other forms of Buddhism or religious beliefs, which Nichiren saw as expired teachings deviating from the Buddhist truth he had discovered." Since this is an article about Nichiren Buddhism in general, I think your statement is too generalized and I edited it.

As you know there are about 30 Nichiren schools and their interpretations vary widely. Nichiren Shu, Nipponzan Myohoji, and Rissho Koseikai are ecumenically oriented. The early 20th century Nichirenists were highly exclusive but paradoxically cooperated closely with other nationalist religions. The Soka Gakkai under Toda was ardently self-focused but pivoted to a globalist perspective since 1970. Please view my edit and let me know what you think. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: We may all want to check out the Stone article https://books.google.com/books?id=hjum-VG8pTsC&pg=PA71&dq=nichiren+ecumenical&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI0dP37-rWAhVrllQKHfxcCxkQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=nichiren%20ecumenical&f=false which casts some light on "activist" Nichiren schools.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Should SGI adherents take over this "Nichiren" project, a travesty of the teachings will result. Definitely, the various adherents, scholars, and priests from whatever quarter must have their equal input. Their (SGI's)take is wholly heterodox. SGI is Ikedaism, not the Lotus Sutra Buddhism of Nichiren. Just my two and a half cents. 2602:306:CC5C:FEE9:11AF:92C7:509C:4645 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Mark R. Rogow

So if you do not want the article to become filled with POV, use independent sources by scholars or journalists, and don't cherry-pick.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Basic Teachings"

Made a revision to the first paragraph, so that Nichiren is emphasized and sedtarian differences de-emphasized. (Sectarian differences discussed later in the article). More later. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Made changes to the 2md paragraph, again with an eye to clarifying Nichiren rather than the various schools. Major source I used was written in 1917, and mentions no schools - only one intimation I could find that there ARE various schools -- and well before any "new religions", so I think pretty objective. Will post anew paragraph soon.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There were some editing discrepancies in my previous edit. Now (I hope) fixed.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Faith, practice and study

It seems to me that we are offering a partial explanation of Nichiren's practice. He says " Exert yourself in the two ways of practice and study. Without practice and study, there can be no Buddhism. You must not only persevere yourself; you must also teach others. Both practice and study arise from faith. Teach others to the best of your ability." Study and faith are mentioned only once in the text. The way it is now, there are two components, not three plus propagation. I would suggest we include his own words about what he expects practitioners to do.Ltdan43 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Do you know where that would be addressed? I'm thinking of quoting some of his writings to further describe his basic teachings.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nishiyama Honmonji Mislabeled

Nishiyama Honmonji is an independent temple. It is not the head temple of Honmon Shoshu. The source of this error is Rev. Shoryo Tarabini's lineage of the Nichiren schools, http://nichirenshurenkoji.wixsite.com/nichiren-shu-renkoji/lignaggi-nichiren . Nishiyama Honmonji was a constituent temple of the Komon Ha (the temples that descend from Nikko). The seven temples of the Komon Ha (Taisekiji had already left) merged with Nichiren Shu in 1941 as a part of the wartime consolidation of the Nichiren Schools. In 1957, Nishiyama broke away from Nichiren Shu and was administered by Taisekiji. However, this was heavily contested. As a result, there was an interregnum between 1960 and 1975 where the disputing parties fought it out. Finally, in 1975, a court case was settled which gave favor to those who wanted independence and a new chief priest was chosen. For reference, see the Japanese page for Nishiyama https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E5%B1%B1%E6%9C%AC%E9%96%80%E5%AF%BA.

As for Honmon Shoshu, I am unsure of its origin. Adherents claim origins going directly back to Nichiren, but I believe that it is a recent school. I have not been able to find credible information to get a clear answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluzzo (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"Founder" Subsection vs the Nichiren Article

I didn't hear back from anyone on my last post so I decided to start a new section. I am confused about the purpose of the "Founder" subsection here. How is it different from the actual Nichiren article? What is the rationale for replicating it here? I just don't get it. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're suggesting: get rid of the "Founder" section? I think there should be something about Nichiren's life, though I agree that what is here now doesn't really capture all of the essence of Nichiren's teaching and his life. And btw I think his life and teachings are quite intertwines, which is one reason I suggested combining them.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16: I am not advocating removing the Founder section. Obviously an article about Nichiren Buddhism needs to be linked to Nichiren. But the question still remains how not to replicate the Nichiren article itself.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if someone else has opinions about this. I still don't see how this section isn't a duplication of the stand-alone article.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Founder" and "Development of Nichiren Buddhism and its major lineages"

I raised an issue about the "Founder" subsection and would like to raise it again. IMHO there is an unclear rationale for a "Founder" subsection which replicates the "Nichiren" article itself.

I would like to propose that the subsection be renamed "Founding of Nichiren Buddhism." This is different from the current biographical summary of Nichiren's life. It would take into account (perhaps as sub-subsections): (1)the Kamakura era in which he lived which influence his life, (2) developing influences of his youth, (3) his foundational scholarship, and (4) his evolving beliefs based upon his "bodily reading the sutra" from persecutions. There is ample scholarship on each of these points.

From here the flow of subsections is much smoother. In the Development section I think we should include the "Nationalist Interpretations" because this signals the growing role of laypeople in Nichiren Buddhism.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of other editors. BrandenburgG (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I posted a sample of where I think this subsection can go. Please provide me some feedback. In the meanwhile I will be adding more sources: Kitagawa, Dobbins, Stone, etc.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nichiren Buddhism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nichiren Buddhism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Anesaki 1916":

• From Gohonzon: Anesaki, Masaharu (1906). Nichiren: The Prophet (1916). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780674730786.
• From Bodhisattvas of the Earth: Anesaki, Masaharu (1916). Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9781498186582.
• From Visistacaritra: Anesaki, Masaharu (1916). Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9781498186582. This is the first definite statement' about his personal connection with Viśiṣṭacāritra (Jap. Jogyo), the leader of the saints called out of earth in the chapter on the 'Apparition of the Heavenly Shrine.' From this time on, Nichiren remained constant in the belief that his former life was that of Viśiṣṭacāritra, although he often referred to other saints as his predecessors, and spoke as if he were a reincarnation of one of them.
• From Sadāparibhūta: Anesaki, Masaharu (1916). Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9781498186582. The Sanskrit name Sadāparibhūta, certainly means the 'Constantly-abused,' but Kumarajiva rendered the name by the 'Constantly-revering,' that is, Sadā-aparibhūta, or with a different termination indicating the present participle. Japanese, jō-kufyō.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite understanding this. I believe the reference cited in "Bodhisattvas of the Earth", as listed above, is accurate (if that's the question?).--Daveler16 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede reflecting scope of Nichiren Buddhism

Added a sentence to clarify that Nichiren Buddhism is practiced around the world. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed sentence with no citation from lede (one I mistakenly put in yesterday).--Daveler16 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Added revised sentence I deleted on the 7th, with citation--Daveler16 (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

Someone (just an address, no name deleted the statement about the 3 largest sects. I undid the deletion. Not only is the statement sourced, but it is absurd to claim than an of the other sects is bigger than either Nichiren Shu, Nichiren Shoshu or the Soka Gakkai.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Could we at least discuss these things here on the Talk Page (as I've been trying to do) where dialogue can happen? Rather than just making changes with a comment in the edit summary? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@2605:E000:2197:2D00:D091:A7EC:CDE2:8A27. You deleted (twice) content in this article without providing a rationale. I have to agree with @Daveler16's point above. The discussion belongs here. Perhaps you are a new editor and need some support. There are more experienced editors who are willing to walk you through some of the ins and outs of WP.

At any rate, please raise your concerns here and the edits will naturally follow after we try to balance and accommodate varying sources. For example, are you objecting to the content or to the source? Is there something else that is bothering you? Thank you.BrandenburgG (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Nationalistic Interpretations" vs. "Nichiren Buddhism in Modern Japanese History"

I would like to propose renaming "Nationalistic Interpretations" to "Nichiren Buddhism in Modern Japanese History." This would entail elevating it to a stand alone subsection. It would be based on Habito's article "The Uses of Nichiren in Modern Japanese History" at http://www.hbsitalia.it/public/materiale/554.pdf or JSTOR.BrandenburgG (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the draft I'd like to submit: User:BrandenburgG/sandbox Any feedback? BrandenburgG (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I am going to make the changes I proposed above. I hope other editors review and leave feedback.BrandenburgG (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but mixing Kokuchūkai with Kenshōkai, due to the time line, in one sentence is simply not correct. The latter may be nationalistic, but had nothing to do with the May 15 Incident nor the League of Blood Incident. Far more interesting is that fact that Tsunesaburō Makiguchi’s first encounter with Nichiren Buddhism was with Kokuchūkai, Tanaka Chigaku respectively – no mentioning of that though. A fact some may not be very proud of, but some may find interesting especially in the wake of the fact that Komeito (A party made 100% of nearly SG members) is in a coalition with Democratic Liberal Party (Japan). Democratic Liberal Party (Japan) who’s government members, including Abe, are also a member of Nippon Kaigi. The not-mentioning of Komeito in all this seems a bit strange too – as a matter of fact a coalition partner in, what some would describe, a nationalistic government. --2.247.244.89 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

::::@2.247.244.89,2605 and @e000:2197:2d00:40cf:80f4:3bdb:f82e I rolled back some of your edits but tried to incorporate your critiques.

I think it is critical to provide readers with the context to changes in NB starting with the Meiji period. Nichirenism did not come out of nowhere. Readers should see it as a response similar to much of what occurred in Japanese Buddhism. I provided some excellent sources to substantiate this.

As to the subsection title, I restored the change I made earlier in the week but I am very open to findng a good compromise. Leaving it as "Nationalistic" doesn't cover the Nichiren globalist movement, nor the social movements, nor its impact on literature and social consciousness.

I think you made good points about trying to cover too much/too quickly in the historical context. In retrospect this material might work better in another article. I also provided some titles for sub-subsections.

I also think you made some good points about Makiguchi and Komeito. Maybe this article needs another subsection about post-WW2 history of Nichiren Buddhism. What do you think?BrandenburgG (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Collusion and Reformation

@104.172.184.93, thank you for your edits. I think we are working toward a good compromise position which strengthens the article yet leaves it tighter. I think two important points were cut out. First is the extent of collusion between Buddhist temples and the state which went further than the danka system. Second, I think we need to restore the shock to the Buddhist establishment that went along with the Meiji reforms. In the Buddhism in Japan article the editors use the phrase "Buddhist institutions had a simple choice: adapt or perish" and maybe that is compromise language we can use.

It would be very helpful to discuss these matters here on the Talk Page so we can work together better. BrandenburgG (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not work on the first point above but did provide more citations to discuss the second point {lay centrality) and specifically provided citation for this discussion with Nichiren Buddhism. I welcome discussion on this.BrandenburgG (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Faith Practice Study

@2600:387:8:9::57:No doubt there are different interpretations of "FP&S, and they should be noted in this article. However, the wording you delete3d was put there by an editor who brought up the topic here, on the Talk Page, and gave other editors a chance to discuss. Making a major edit with nothing but a comment in the edit summary thwarts the cooperative effort I believe WP desires. I did not completely re-write your edit, but I did re-insert some of the previous wording, in the hopes that we can discuss the matter here. What do you (and others) think: It might be a good idea to give FP&S its own sub-section, noting that some sects have broader concepts of (especially) faith and practice than others. Thoughts?--Daveler16 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page

Would anyone have any objections to archiving older Talk Page posts? Most other WP articles have much tighter and easier to manage Talk pages. I read archiving can be done manually or through a bot Help:Archiving a talk page. I haven't tried this yet and perhaps someone can take it on if you know how to do it. Thank you. BrandenburgG (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Habito article

I want to encourage other editors here to read the Habito article "Bodily Reading the Lotus Sutra." Google Books has most of the article which led me to purchase the Teiser/Stone book. He expands the same topic in an article article in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies (1999). I am trying to incorporate of few of his ideas in our WP article. BrandenburgG (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not happy about my edits using Habito. I don't think I've effectively captured his thinking. I need to work on it some more. I know that WP tends to avoid bulleting but I think this is the best solution to covering his four points. Otherwise I've over summarized. Any suggestions?BrandenburgG (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look and provide feedback. I incorporated Habito's summary of Nichiren's 1259 writing "On Protecting the Country" into four bullets. This incorporates Nichiren's viewpoints about "bodily reading the Lotus Sutra."

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Nichiren's Life" subsection

I am finding wonderful sources that describe the evolution of Nichiren's thinking as he moved forward in his life. Please comment and feel free to add/suggest other sources.BrandenburgG (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sub-subsections for "Nichiren's life"

I proposed several sub-sections for this subsection. Please feel free to revise.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lineage and flow

First, @BrandenburgG, thank you for your recent edits I think they full out the article and use of many sources. I also assume it was you who cleaned up the Talk Page?

Now that Nichiren's life has been fleshed out more, I'm thinking the flow of the whole article could be improved. It goes from life, to teachings and writings, to temple-based sects, back to the 6 major priests, and then back to sects and organizations, then Nichiren's influence on Japanese history. Perhaps all that history could be condensed into one "History" section?

Meanwhile, according to the self-proclaimed membership totals on their WP entries, temple-based sect membership is a little over 4 million, while 3 lay-based groups each claim more than that, with the Soka Gakkai alone claiming 3 times more than all the temple groups combined. I'm trying to track down more neutral evaluations of these totals, but I think it indicates that the lineage claimed by the lay groups deserves more than mentions in a list. This should not be considered odd or heretical - the Lotus Sutra lineage has a long history of critical contributions by laity, including the compilation of the sutra itself. I am a long way away from being able to further work on this idea --- source material does not fall like mandara from the sky -- but please consider and comment.

But first, can we work on the flow of the article as a whole? BrandenburG has made a good start on that for us.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16, thanks for your kind words about my recent edits.

I think your idea about pulling the historical sub-subsections into one "History" subsection makes sense. Can we wait for a few days so some other editors have a chance to ring in? In the meanwhile I have a few more sources and data I want to post.

As far as numbers, it seems obvious to me that "size matters." It may not be EVERYTHING but certainly it's not NOTHING. I don't have any objections to your suggestions, pending linking them to legitimate sources. Thank you.

BrandenburgG (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know very much about "Nichiren Buddhism", and this article isn't very helpful. I agree about the "flow", but I also know there are many people, just where I live, for whom Nichiren Buddhism is alive and an important part of their lives. This article gives the impression it is very small and static, if not moribund. Any improvements would, I'm sure, be welcome, especially if its current poularity could be recognized.--JackBnimble10 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16, I restructured the article as you proposed above. "Development of NB" is now "History" and I pulled all the historical strands that were previously scattered throughout the article into this subtitle. I think it works quite well. Your thoughts? Anyone else care to chime in? BrandenburgG (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Subtitles

I made two changes in the subtitles. Please provide feedback if you have suggestions. The edits can be easily modified or reverted.

IMO there's a difference between this article and the article about Nichiren. The latter is about his life as a person; the former is about the development of NB. Therefore, I replaced the "main article" tag pointing to the Nichiren article with a "see also" tag.

I'd like to suggest that the subtitle reflect both "history" and "development" so it's now "History and Development." Am I being too picky or redundant here?

"Development during Nichiren's life" is not the sub-subtitle. The sources make it clear that N's teachings were not revelatory from Day One but evolved with circumstances. So if we are discussing the development of NB we have to discuss how it developed during his life.

Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"End of Career" Sub-subsection

As currently written, this sub-subsection is extremely weak. It lacks citations, passes over key points in the development of Nichiren Buddhism during this time, and avoids the scholarly work of Jacqueline Stone in particular. I would like to modify it with text that be previewed in my sandbox. I look forward to your feedback.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead with the change but please feel free to edit, revert, or engage in further dialogue. NB: I provided a source (Christensen) to the text about Kuonji Temple but moved the material to the Nichiren article where IMO it fits better.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no lack of issue that you have provided the source about name of author by Jack Arden Christensen excluded the NPOV dispute issues about the honorific words such as like Shonin or Daishonin have mentioned at the reliable sources which is not using by every schools on the instruct, and the other incorrect and unsourced information such as like this, this, the words Bodhisattva, and the words monk (Is priest, not monk) at Nichiren's article. I will try to remove it again by after the date on 15 June if there is no longer on the altercation. Previously I had undo away my elimination materials which is because I want to stop and tone down those IP editors have engaged an disruptive editing, or else, I am not going to restore it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am not quite sure I understand all of your points. Are you objecting to my use of the Christensen source? I know that he does not have a NPOV. But I do not feel that I gave him UNDUE WEIGHT. I believe he is a valuable source and I would hate to remove him. Despite two minor uses of his book, I believe the article maintains NPOV as a whole. As far as "priest" or "monk" usage, I tried to follow whatever the source said. If I made any mistake here, let's try to fix it up with a case-by-case approach. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome. :) That is all I want to say, there is no any undue weight issues, if you got any related clauses on the article topic want to improve, feel free to leave me a message at my talk page for the discussions, and I'll try my ability to respond in swiftly for the help. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No citations at all in "Fuji Lineage" sub section

I added "citation needed" footnotes to each paragraph in the "Fuji Lineage" sub section. There are many statements of a historical nature (among others) and not one citation for any of them.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16, I agree with your point. In fact, the entire "Development of Nichiren Buddhism in medieval Japan section is poorly resourced.

Donald Lopez' "The Lotus Sutra: A Biography" might be a starting point with "Separation of the six senior disciples and their lineages" although it doesn't give the same level of detail as this section.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Development During Nichiren's Life"

I just came across a wonderful article by Jacqueline Stone, "Biographical Sources of Nichiren" In this article she discusses three modern biographical works on Nichiren and also some of the difficulties scholars have piecing together his life story due to the lack of historical records and the accumulation of various stories embedded in culture and religious schools.

She reviews three recent Japanese biographical treatments. One of them, a work by Nichiren scholar Yoshio Tamura, suggests breaking down the development of Nichiren's thinking into three periods: (1) up to the submission of the Rissho Ankoku Ron, (2) from the first exile in Izu to the end of the second exile in Sado, (3) the Minobu era. Stone does not disagree with the categorization but has some objections to some of Tamura's ideas.

Still, this classification is close to the four periods proposed in this article. With a little editing I believe we can adjust the article to fit to Tamura's scheme. Would anyone care to share thoughts about this? BrandenburgG (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's my first stab at the rewrite (Sandbox). It has a tech glitch in which one of the sub-subsections appears in the contents box but not in the article. See "1.2 Middle stage: 1261-1273". It's weird and I can't figure it out. However, the Tamura classification works nicely with an added lede to the subsection. Any comments?BrandenburgG (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am going to post the restructuring. Please let me know what you think.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Development of NB in medieval Japan"

I would like to attract some editors to help me improve this section. It is very poorly sourced as of now. There are many paragraphs that have no sources whatsoever. There are also paragraphs that rely on websites without any credentials. In addition there are some Japanese-language sources which are legitimate but translations of relevant passages would be highly welcome.

I am happy to work on the many syntax problems that exist in this sub-section as a start. Are there any interested editors who have a background in this time period?

Thank you, BrandenburgG (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I started the work of sourcing this section. This will be a long and difficult journey, paragraph-by-paragraph combat. Help would definitely be appreciated!BrandenburgG (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikko's claims

I have not been able to find any credible and objective sources that can substantiate the material in this sub-subsection. Maybe it is in Nikko's writings which are not, to my knowledge, translated in English. Perhaps Japanese-speaking editors can find sources to substantiate this section. Otherwise, I'm afraid, this sub-subsection should be deleted until sources can be located. Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nichiren Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531021739/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/2/victoria011.html to http://www.globalbuddhism.org/2/victoria011.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6XPCdLtC8?url=http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/ to http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Next steps

I am on the last lap of my work editing this article. I found enough citations in Stone's Original Enlightenment book to save the sub-subsection that was previously called "Nikko's claim." I changed its title to "Founding of Fuji Lineage" and I think it works. I tagged two paragraphs that still need citations.

From here I will focus on the development of NB in the mid-to-later medieval era. Although there is sourcing in the current version, I think it is inadequate. I think I can incorporate "claims of forged documents" and some of "Fuji lineage" into the current narrative.

That's as far as I plan to go with this article. It is much too long (a lot of it my fault) but I'll need to let a couple of months pass to create some space for me to look at it with fresh eyes. Perhaps when I shut up and the cannonball fire stops some other editors will feel free to come out again and provide feedback and editing.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused about "Fuji Lineage" Sub-subsection

This section is not sourced. Beyond that problem, it is highly confusing and misleading! It claims the common identification are locations near Fuji. I see references to "fuji fuse" and I am not sure that is the same as "fuju fuse". From my Google Book searches it appears to be used interchangeably. If they are the same then "fuju fuse" has already been referenced in the article. The term "Fuji lineage" is also highly confusing because this is commonly used interchangeably with Nikko lineage. Can anyone clarify? If not I would recommend that this sub-subsection be scheduled for deletion. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I have found a solution. I would like to rename this subsubsection from "Fuji Lineage" to "Edo to Meiji Transition" or something like that. This will be in line with the titling of the other subsubsections. Also, I finally found one source (Matsunaga) for the section. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to apologize to the previous editors who worked on this subsubsection but it is unclear, unsourced, and redundant because there already is a subsubsection called "the origin of the Fuji School." Last week I voiced these objections and others as well. I would like to replace the section with the piece in my sandbox. It follows the pattern of starting with the historical context and it is fully sourced. There's a small overlay between the old and the proposed version but not very much. If it's any consolation to the previous editors, I believe almost every item in the old section (i.e., "fuju fuse") is covered elsewhere in the article. BrandenburgG (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"Major" vs "Other"

I am confused by the list of sects, calling all the temple-related ones "Major" while "new" (mostly lay) organizations) are "Other". According to their own websites or Wiki pages, the temples have fewer members than at least 2 of the lay organizations, and even just a basic awareness tells us that the major movements -- the energy -- of Nichiren Buddhism over the last 100 years r so have come from the "new" sects. How about changing the designations to "temples" or "Clergy Based" and "Lay Sects"? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16, I think you are raising a good question here. I hope you don't mind but I think the discussion deserves a section of its own.

NPOV implies non-judgemental language and, as you raised, there is a value gap between "major" and "other".BrandenburgG (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed "Major" to "Clerical" and removed the word "Other". The title of the latter is still long and perhaps can be further edited? --Daveler16 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is much improved now. I do want to ask you a question, however. For both the clerical and the modern sub-subsections, is there a criterion for making it on the lists?BrandenburgG (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

On the list of "Lay organizations", I removed a few that do not meet the stated criteria (linked to English or Japanese WP pages). I also removed history from Shoshinkai and Soka Gakkai , as both of these have links that include their histories and there's no need to include selectively chosen bits on this list. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I think you should use the same criterion to remove the history from Kenshokai.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Globalization of Nichiren Buddhism

As the article now stands there is a very (almost exclusive) Japan-centric perspective. From a historical perspective this is unavoidable. However, Nichiren Buddhism has spread globally and this should be highlighted. Many Nichiren groups claim an international presence and this should also be highlighted.

My suggestion is to change sub-section 1.4 from "Nichiren Buddhism in modern Japanese history" to "Nichiren Buddhism in modern history." Then I would add a sub-subsection 1.4.5 tentatively labeled "Globalization (or internationalization) of Nichiren Buddhism."

An alternative idea would be to add a sub-section "1.5 "Globalization of Nichiren Buddhism."

Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking very much the same thing, generally, and the changes you propose seem reasonable to me. I would also suggest moving "Basic Teachings" and "Nichiren's Writings" up, to follow the "Nichiren and His Times" section -- before the development of the various sects. I think the article would flow better that way, and would make it easier for most readers to find what propably most interests them.--Daveler16 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16. Thanks for your input on my globalization topic.

I think your other comments merit their own discussion topic. I hope you do not mind, but I copied them and pasted them into a new section.BrandenburgG (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Where do "Basic teachings" and "Nichiren writings" belong?

(moved by BrandenburG without editor's permission)

I would suggest moving "Basic Teachings" and "Nichiren's Writings" up, to follow the "Nichiren and His Times" section -- before the development of the various sects. I think the article would flow better that way, and would make it easier for most readers to find what propably most interests them.--Daveler16 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC) BrandenburgG (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The above has been here a week, and so far no objections. I'll give it another day and then, if still nothing, will make the change.--Daveler16 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hoc est.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16, can you please review your credit? I think you had talked about putting it above history and development. However, you put it in the middle of the history and development section. Is this what you intended? Thank you.BrandenburgG (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrandenburgG -- Thanks. Had to rename a bit, but got it the way I intended now.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Daveler16, Thanks for your edits but I'm still not sure this works and I'm confused. I think many readers would come to the article wanting to know about "Nichiren's Teachings" and I believe this subsection merits elevation to an independent section.

Right now it comes under the section of "Nichiren" and it is kind of buried among all the history and stuff. There's a subtle difference between the "Basic Teachings" of Nichiren and, as written in the first sentence, "The basic practice of Nichiren Buddhism..." which has gone through changes and interpretations over the centuries.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well so I apologize for my confusion.

BrandenburgG (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems to me the section on Nichiren's life indicates there was a connection between his personal experiences and the development of his thought. So doesn't it flow better when his personal experiences are outlined before the summary of his basic teachings?--Daveler16 (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)