Andy Hanlen -- longtime SGI member and would-be reformer -- resigned from the organization in September 2002. He was kind enough to answer a few questions from Lisa Jones.

LJ: Many members know you as one of the founders of the Independent Reassessment Group and a gadfly regarding reform in the SGI. Do you think that IRG was successful in some way?

AH: It's impossible to say for certain what effect (if any) the IRG has had. All I can offer are my personal perceptions. I know that there is a lot more open public talk among members about reform than there was five years ago, when the subject was rarely discussed at all. I know there is a LOT more discussion on the Internet about it, and it's increasingly more reasonable and well thought out. From what friends all around the country, and even overseas, say, it continues to be an open subject in many areas, and people are speaking up where there was silence previously.

The fact that the SGI-USA leadership has seen fit to address the subject for the first time in written form, in memos for "all SGI-USA members," in national teleconferences and on the official SGI-USA web site says a lot, I think. For better or worse, we got their attention. What that attention has accomplished is difficult to measure. It's also difficult to know how much of what's going on might have occurred anyway, with or without the IRG.

My personal opinion is that we (IRG) have served a valuable function in bringing many of these matters out into the open and placing them "on the table," and also in letting people know that there are others out here who share these ideas. We have received many communications from people along the lines of: "I'm so happy to know that I'm not alone in my views..."

That the SGI-USA leadership continues to demur, but has gone to great lengths to discredit the messengers while declining to engage in dialogue about the issues, says something. I leave it to individuals to decide for themselves what is being said.

Fringe groups rarely succeed in achieving all, or even most, of their goals (and I would consider the IRG to be a fringe group). That said, they serve a valuable function in any group, be it a religious organization, a family or a nation. By shining bright lights into dark places they make it impossible to ignore issues, and can manage to move "the middle" a few incremental degrees one way or the other. In terms of the official organizational response, that movement appears to be in a reactionary direction, a matter of "circling the wagons." The bunker mentality displayed officially indicates that the leadership has no intention of moving on these core issues, and they certainly have shown that they will not acknowledge or grant any legitimacy to those on the fringes (as they see them).

But I wonder. I see people leaving the organization, and I also see people who were formerly silent getting louder. I think that we have, at minimum, served as a wake up call, both to the leadership, as they begin to see what they can and can't get away with anymore, and to the membership, as they start to realize that there are like-minded members and that, if they want, they can actually take charge of their own organization. How long it may take to realize actual meaningful reform is anyone's guess.

I personally think that the organization will build stronger bunkers, let in those persons who like the bunker decor, while others decide to move on. But that's just my own opinion.

All of the above is a rather wordy way of saying, "who knows?" In the meantime, although I have withdrawn from active reform efforts (and the organization), the IRG continues. One founding member, John Nicks, carries on the IRG central committee along with Bill Anker. Both remain dedicated to reform efforts, and in addition to the familiar reformers, there are new "faces" involved in the reform discussions who have been inspired by the IRG to raise their voices and take action. There are independent reform-minded members all over the country. I think the reform movement is there to stay, and I have only the best wishes for its eventual success.

LJ: Many members felt that you were going to fight for SGI reform as an SGI member forever. What changed your mind? Was there a last straw? Why wasn't it possible for you to "agree to disagree" and stay in the SGI?

AH: No, there was no particular last straw. I wrote a rather lengthy letter explaining my decision, addressed to SGI-USA Senior Advisor Guy McCloskey (whom I also regard as a friend), but I'm a little bit uncomfortable posting that letter in its entirety, because I don't want to be the cause, perceived or actual, of more people leaving the SGI-USA. I came to a point where I was convinced that, in my opinion, the organization is fundamentally incapable of instituting the key changes needed, and I was uncomfortable calling myself a member of the SGI-USA, feeling as I do and knowing what I know. In one part of my letter to Guy, I said this:

"...the SGI-USA has made it increasingly clear that, not only would the leadership refuse to engage in open and honest dialogue about these matters, it has and will continue to attempt to stifle dialogue about them, and engage in lies and misrepresentations about the reformers in an attempt to discredit these messengers."

I value my integrity highly, and I respect and honor it in others. I think that I may value it more in myself because it's something I have struggled over the years to achieve. I know, from my own youth, what it is to be a liar, and I have worked hard in my life to actualize the Buddhist principles contained in the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho so that I am able to say today, to anyone, "I do not lie." Certainly I can make mistakes and errors in judgment, but I do not engage in falsehoods. A character in a novel I read recently says, "Stand and be true." I do this, to the best of my ability. The reverse is also true: I have little respect or time for dishonest people...or organizations.

It really came down to me being able to live with myself. I also wrote:

"There is no longer any question in my mind that the organization itself, as manifested at SGI Plaza, and reflective of Japan, is stuck in a flawed operating mode. By this I mean that it is systemically locked into a Japanese-style paradigm where lies and dishonesty, if judged to be for a 'good' cause, are okay. I would not condone such behavior in my child, and I can no longer support an organization that behaves this way."

I am left asking myself if I can, in good conscience, continue to be associated with an organization that behaves this way. In calling myself a member of the SGI-USA, even though I raise my voice in protest, I am giving it my tacit approval and support. I have often been asked how I can do this, and my answers are wearing thin. "I stay with the SGI-USA because I hope to change it" is ringing mighty hollow. I believe that the evidence points to the truth: the SGI-USA has no desire to change this unethical and un-Buddhist behavior any time soon, if ever. I believe that participation with it is not essential to my own journey of faith, and actually runs counter to my personal sense of integrity. I cannot comfortably introduce new people to Nichiren Buddhism under the auspices of the SGI-USA.

I also wrote: "I must conclude that I do not need what the organization offers me. I have my Buddhist faith, and that deepens every day. I have friends and an extended network of fellow Nichiren believers, both in my own area and around the country (and the world). That won't change. I can and do introduce others and help them practice. Most importantly, I have an aching heart as I see what the organization is, and is becoming, and a creeping embarrassment at being a part of that, knowing what I know. I do not need what the organization offers me, and it is not interested in what I offer it."

I realize that these snippets from that letter are inadequate in showing the entire breadth of my thinking, but I remain a bit reluctant to post the entire piece (4 pages) publicly. Here's part of the conclusion to it:

"For what it's worth, Guy, and having no further investment in whether or not it is followed, I offer this advice: please look long and hard at the inherent hypocrisy in the organization you work for. You cannot promote goals and slogans like 'The Year of Expanded Dialogue' while stifling and restricting dialogue, and expect everyone to just go along. Some will, perhaps many, but in the long run you must realize the basic truth of Buddhism: that all causes generate effects. The dishonest and hypocritical causes being made by your organization, even if well intentioned, can only generate commensurate effects. The true parasite in the bowels of the SGI-USA is not, as many assert, a handful of reformers who simply want to address some obvious problems and help to advance the organization. The cancer that is destroying its unity is the lack of ethics and integrity at its core, and the individuals who engage in lies and dishonesty for a perceived higher cause."

As a final note on this question, I'll just say that I answer all correspondence, and I am happy to share the entire letter privately, upon request, with the understanding that it not be posted publicly.

LJ: Some people are saying that you were defeated. How do you feel about this?

AH: I do not leave the SGI-USA as an adversary, although I am very aware that the simple fact of my withdrawal will be seen by many as an adversarial act. I am also aware that there will be many lies and rumors spread about my departure, ranging from tales of me rejoining Nichiren Shoshu to stories of me quitting my Buddhist practice, having weak faith, being "influenced" by persons of evil intent, and so forth. There is little I can do to prevent that, and as I know all too well, it's common practice among some top senior leaders in our organization to encourage such talk.

Some of your readers have doubtless already heard "facts" about me, my activities, and my departure from the organization. Too, there will be those who see my decision as surrender or "giving up:" a sign of weak character. All of these considerations constitute a large part of the reason I stayed with the organization as long as I did, and finally I came to the realization, after many hundreds of hours of daimoku, that they added up to a pretty poor excuse.

What I was, in essence, doing was allowing my concern over what others might think of me to unduly influence me. That's about ego and self-image, and I concluded that I need to do what I believe to be correct, regardless. I will not attempt to defend against such charges. All I have done is a matter of public record, and I remain accessible to anyone interested in corresponding with me. People will think what they will, either fairly evaluating me and my actions, or not.

I won't say it hasn't hurt when I've received some of these reactions from people, especially some whom I had thought of as friends, or at least as reasonable and fair-minded individuals (and it's more hurtful when I hear about them second hand, as I have, indicating that these folks don't even have the decency to address me directly), but I can't worry about it. I harbor no anger in this regard, as I understand very well this aspect of human nature. I'm no saint, and it would be unfair to expect anyone else to be one.

LJ: Do you think you'll ever come back to practice with SGI?

AH: If I see that it is moving in a positive direction, and addressing these core problems, sure, that's possible. What's more important to me is my practice of faith, and that will continue regardless of what, if any, organization I participate with. I do see a lot of value in group efforts, but I take a somewhat different view from that of the SGI (an understatement, that!)

I believe that the community of Nichiren believers is larger than any one organization. I feel a sense of community with my friends who remain with the SGI, with Nichiren Shoshu, and with others who participate with other Nichiren sects, or independently. I think Nichiren was pretty clear in saying that all practitioners of the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra are Bodhisattvas of the Earth, and it saddens me to see the continuing claims by the SGI that they are the "only" group of believers correctly practicing as Nichiren taught. I just don't accept that claim. I think there is a lot of room for diversity and interpretation, and I think that the unity that we should be seeking is exactly what Nichiren advised, one that "transcends all differences" among us.

In an ideal world, I would envision the wide spread of Nichiren Buddhism in America (and the world, of course), to such an extent that every town has multiple centers for Nichiren Buddhists to come together, in much the same way that Christians can choose to be Baptists or Methodists or Episcopalians or Lutherans, without being judged to be not practicing "correct" Christianity. I know it seems a far off dream at the moment, but I see no reason why it can't happen.

Interestingly enough, almost all of the other Nichiren sects (more than 35) get along just fine, agreeing to disagree on a few doctrinal issues, but otherwise being reasonable and tolerant toward each other. Only Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI behave in this exclusionary manner. Change that, and a few other operating malfunctions, and yes, I'd probably be quite interested in participating with the SGI again.

I wrote in my letter to Guy that I leave the SGI-USA with fond memories and deep appreciation for the organization where I was introduced to this Buddhism and where I, for many years, "grew up" in faith. I leave in good conscience and with a sincere prayer for all of my dear friends, hoping to maintain good relations and connections with them all. I do not want to lead anyone away from the organization, nor do I want to harm it.

I believe that, with my decision, I am stepping out of a still pond and moving into, or at least actively seeking, the flowing river that will lead to the essential realization of our Bodhisattva mission. Perhaps in the future we can dig a channel that connects the pond to the river.

LJ: Why did you "join" the Nichiren Society of America? Why didn't you join Nichiren Shu or Nichiren Shoshu?

AH: Regarding Nichiren Shoshu, I simply do not accept the core doctrinal positions of that sect, most particularly regarding specific transmission and all that that entails, including their erroneous view of the Nikko lineage and the "Dai" Gohonzon mythology.

I should note that I do NOT support the Gakkai's ongoing war with its former sect, nor do I feel that it's followers are necessarily doomed to suffering and misery, and therefore need to be targeted for "salvation." They are all free to choose. They too, chant the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra and they, too, will become Buddhas.

Regarding Nichiren Shu (and this holds true for other Nichiren sects), I think that their core doctrinal stance is a lot more mainstream and correct, and that the SGI should be moving in that direction, but I am still not inclined to join one of them. I'll be happy to check them out when/if they have activities in my area, and I have many friends there who are doing just fine, and who have my respect and support.

Since the schism between Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI I have, as have all who have looked for it, been exposed to a wealth of information about other Nichiren schools and Buddhism in general that was previously not easy to find. The SGI to this day discourages such research, as is demonstrated by the fact that none of the literature in SGI bookstores comes from sources that are not either SGI authored or SGI "approved." (Look, for example, for anything by J.I. Stone from any SGI source.)

In looking for other resources, I have encountered materials and individuals from the other Nichiren schools and from secular scholars, and I have begun to broaden my understanding of the various, and often conflicting, historical and doctrinal perspectives which have developed in the centuries since Nichiren passed. As I mentioned above, the Nichiren School (Shu) seems to have a better and more honest understanding, as best I can tell, and most other Nichiren schools are more in line with their views. Even so, they all have "territory" they tend to guard, and lineages and perspectives to which they cling. Some have newer teachers ("shonin" or "daishi") who have "purified," "restored," etc. the "true teachings." Some have what they consider to be the "correct" original understanding from which others have "deviated." This is certainly the case with the Fuji School/Nikko lineage (Nichiren Shoshu) with which I am most familiar.

It is my desire, at the present time, to return to the sources, the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's authenticated works -- which is less than half of the translated Gosho in the Gakkai-produced The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, by the way -- as best I can and find for myself the essential truths, minus the sectarian filtering.

I'm no scholar, and I can't read Japanese or Chinese, so I am necessarily limited to materials available in English, but I do the best I can. As I continue my journey of faith I want to try to be as objective as possible. Maybe all of this will lead me to conclude that one or more of the other Nichiren sects has THE correct understanding, and maybe not. I just want to try to look at everything, as much as possible, without priestly interpretation or sectarian coloring.

This may be arrogant on my part, but it's the way I feel right now. I've spent over half of my life going along with the Nichiren Shoshu/SGI view of Nichiren Buddhism, and I find now that there was a lot lacking there, and a lot withheld. Before I jump into another traditional or doctrinally fixed sect, I want to try to determine just what is, and is not, at the core of Nichiren Buddhism for myself. So I talk to all of them, and everyone, ask questions and read what I can get my hands on. I don't do this in order to begin yet another Nichiren school of thought, but simply to find, if possible, the original one.

I heard an amusing anecdote recently about a young person, raised in the Gakkai, who flunked a test on Buddhism in a college comparative religion course, thinking that she knew all about Buddhism by virtue of being a graduate in the SGI-USA Study Department.

I have a lot to learn, and some to unlearn. So for now, I just don't care to join another particular sect.

Which brings me to NSA. I guess I don't feel that I have "joined" anything. NSA is not an organization in the same sense that the other Nichiren sects are, or even in the sense that the SGI is. I won't go into the details of what NSA is about, as people can read that elsewhere, but what it is not, in my opinion, is a monolithic organization to be "joined." I see it rather as an association or confederation of Nichiren Buddhists; a resource for communications and networking; a useful way to connect, share thoughts and ideas and information and a sense of community, without an overbearing organizational leadership and rules or specific doctrinal mandates.

I should point out that this is just my own thinking. Some of the other folks involved in NSA may see things a little differently, but we are all in agreement on a few basics. No one is in charge. There is no leadership structure nor will there be. Our bond is our desire to practice and spread Nichiren Buddhism.

The emergence of NSA at about the same time I made my decision to leave the SGI-USA was coincidental. I set myself a deadline for my own decision over a year ago, and I made that decision when the deadline was reached. In the meantime, the folks who wanted to start NSA were proceeding (and yes, although not a prime mover, I was involved in that), and they "came out" with it at about the same time as my decision. I did not "join" NSA as an alternative to the SGI-USA. In fact, NSA is not necessarily an alternative group. Many folks who are associated with it remain affiliated with other Nichiren groups, including the SGI.

LJ: Over the years, there have been many people who have left SGI and tried to start "unaffiliated" sanghas. These groups never really grew into a national network. What makes NSA different?

AH: Dunno. We'll have to see. It's most definitely a work in progress. I think it's a good idea, but I have no way of knowing if it will take off or not. What I am confident about is that Nichiren Buddhism is a great idea, and that it will take off sooner or later for sure. What particular organizational vehicle will take it the farthest or do the most remains to be seen. Obviously the SGI has done the most, to date, in getting the basic ideas involved out into the world, but it's a small beginning. There are 270 million Americans who have never heard of it. Maybe a few more will through the efforts of folks affiliated with NSA. That would be good. Also good will be those who hear of it through Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, SGI, and others.

My concern is that I continue to self-reflect about how best to fulfill my own mission in this regard. It's the most important thing I can do.

*

Andy and Dana Hanlen practice Nichiren Buddhism in Long Beach, California.