Buddhists in general, and SGI-USA members specifically, are on a mission to hold dialogues and bring our world closer to peace. Ours is a "peaceful battle" of dialogue. And we're losing. Big time.

Losing the dialogue war? Well, that's obviously a subjective statement on my part. All I know is what I've experienced.

A friend recently assured me, "I had seven people in my living room last night and we had a wonderful dialogue. We all agree that violence is wrong, war is wrong, and that by helping others to see this, we can create a peaceful world."

No offense, I told my friend, but sitting down with like-minded people and affirming your shared beliefs isn't necessarily a dialogue. Rather, we need to engage people who fundamentally disagree with us.

Dialogue fails when we march into it thinking that we have all the answers -- or that ours is the only "correct" view. If that's our attitude, then we've lost before we've even begun. Instead, dialogue requires that we listen openly and work toward a shared understanding. We're not compromising our values in dialogue; we're discovering the deeper values that we share with all people. This is the only way to harmonize radically different viewpoints.

There are five main impediments to our dialogue campaign. Two are what I call internal and three are external. I don't pretend that this is science; it's my opinion.

First of the two internal blocks is fear of conflict. Conflict is a necessary element of dialogue. There are lots of Buddhists who hate conflict and run from it like scalded cats. We think conflict is bad when really it's a swirl of creative possibility. When we fear serious disagreement, our "dialogues" become superficial nice-fests that create no solutions. If we don't engage in the mutual struggle of dialogue, no one wins.

I wonder: Are we afraid of conflict and disagreement, or are we really afraid that our own views might be called into question and that we will have to open our minds to a different view? Either way, it can be scary to engage in dialogue, so bravery is required.

The second internal block is impatient, unreasonable anger. In other words, we find ourselves in conflict with others and we get mad. Instead of running away from the conflict, we dig in our heels. We get wrapped up in the heat of the debate, becoming more interested in refuting what a person has said instead of listening to what is said and offering a thoughtful response.

What's worse, we try to punish those who disagree with us by dismissing them or insulting their intelligence. We tell them that they are deluded or non-Buddhist. As if we are so much more enlightened. This helps no one.

Regarding current world affairs, Buddhists have honestly held, deeply felt differences of opinion. Not all Buddhists believe that U.S. military action is wrong. Other Buddhists actually feel that terrorist attacks are justifiable. Still others feel that all violence is absolutely wrong. I have seen quite a few major blowouts among Buddhists recently where participants have devolved into name-calling, finger-pointing and total disrespect of others' views.

How are we going to dialogue with the rest of society when we can't even do it among ourselves?

SGI President Ikeda has said: "Dialogue based on the speech of the wise, where people are able to explain, comment on, revise and distinguish each other's respective ideas and beliefs - this kind of patient dialogue, where the parties never become angry, is the foundation for fostering religious tolerance." (Space and Eternal Life, page 145.)

The "internal" impediments to dialogue are things that we each can resolve through self-reflection, discipline and challenging ourselves in front of the Gohonzon. There are "external" factors, too, that we need to look at and (if we are so inclined) work to reform.

By external I mean environmental/organizational -- specifically, I'm addressing the climate in which we are trying to conduct dialogue and the resources put at our disposal toward this end by SGI-USA.

While the focus of Buddhism is for each individual to reform his or her own inner state of life, Buddhism never tells us that we should turn a blind eye to problems in our external environment. In fact, part of reforming our inner state involves how we relate with others. Buddhism is not all internal or all external -- it's both, equally, at the same time. At the deepest level, internal and external are inseparable.

In my opinion, the three organizational impediments to dialogue are:
1. Official SGI-USA publications do not present and do not foster dialogue.
2. The SGI-USA has taken official action to squelch dialogue among its own members, as exemplified by memo PLN-030.
3. Last but not least, the way that the Temple Issue has been prosecuted in the U.S. serves as a glaring reminder that SGI-USA itself fails to engage in respectful dialogue.

I know that many people work diligently to produce the World Tribune and Living Buddhism, and I have drawn enormous encouragement from their pages. My main beef is that the publications do not publish any semblance of what President Ikeda described as "dialogue based on the speech of the wise."

To be fair, SGI-USA pubs have printed transcripts of roundtable conversations. But these are not the same as dialogue. In the past couple of years, I have rarely (if ever) seen articles in which "people are able to explain, comment on, revise and distinguish each other's respective ideas and beliefs." There are no more point/counterpoint articles, for example, no opportunities to read dissenting views or ideas other than the most pallid re-hash of "safe," organizationally official themes. The "letters to the editor" sections have been eliminated -- or, when a letter or two miraculously makes it into print, it usually consists of praise for the publications!

That's more like propaganda than journalism, and it's sure not dialogue. Why don't our publications explain and comment on the multiplicity of views and interpretations that blossom from Nichiren Buddhism? Buddhism is anything but narrow --- why don't our publications reflect this? If we want our organization to be foremost in dialogue, then I think our pubs need to both reflect the real dialogue that's going on among members and spark deeper dialogue.

Next -- as to the official, blatant and undeniable squelching of dialogue -- the most notorious example of late is PLN-030, an organizational memo written by SGI-USA staff and distributed to all SGI-USA community centers.

Whether we love them or hate them, there is a group of SGI-USA members who have taken the trouble to write position papers regarding their views of the SGI-USA. They call themselves the Independent Reassessment Group. The main thing is that these people have made sincere and substantial attempts to engage SGI-USA officials in dialogue.

Position papers are not my cup of tea, but they are a peaceful means "to explain, comment on, revise and distinguish each other's respective ideas and beliefs."

But instead of responding in kind or engaging in dialogue with these members, our organization issued a memo, saying: "The Independent Reassessment Group is not an officially recognized part of the SGI-USA organization. Many of the positions it promotes deviate from or contradict Nichiren Daishonin's teachings and the policies of the SGI-USA. For this reason, promotion of the IRG's activities is unacceptable at SGI-USA activities."

This is indefensible, in my view, because the sole activity promoted by IRG is dialogue! Plus, if "the positions it promotes deviate from or contradict Nichiren Daishonin's teachings and the policies of the SGI-USA," isn't it all the more important that we engage in dialogue on these matters?

IRG presented an opportunity for SGI-USA members to discuss and clarify issues of faith and practice, yet the official organization effectively banned dialogue. If this isn't an impediment to dialogue, what is?

Last but not least, the Temple Issue -- although I shudder to even bring it up since it does little more than ignite a firestorm of incivility every time it's mentioned. That's the problem! The issue has become a gnarled, nearly non-dialogue-able mess.

The SGI maintains that Nichiren Shoshu has stated its intent and carried out plans to destroy the SGI. No, this is not a parallel to real-world terrorism and war in which real people are maimed and killed. Rather, this is a doctrinal dispute (although many would characterize it as a mutual organizational grudge) in which both parties claim that the other has distorted the Lotus Sutra toward selfish ends.

Instead of resolving the dispute through dialogue, the SGI-USA is currently discussing ways in which Nichiren Shoshu can be driven out of the U.S. I kid you not. This is the goal being discussed at Soka Spirit meetings. Nichiren Shoshu is likewise striving to discredit and drive out the SGI.

Until we can resolve the Temple Issue through dialogue, perhaps we should not wag our fingers at the United Nations and United States for not relying solely on dialogue in addressing terrorism.

Nichiren Buddhism teaches world peace through individual happiness, not the other way around. It's easy to think sometimes that if everybody would just get on the bandwagon, we would have peace, and then everyone would be happy.

But dialogue is not about getting people to join the bandwagon. It's about engaging each individual, starting with ourselves, and participating in a dialogue that is both internal and external. It can't be reduced to a slogan.

Until we stop promoting dialogue and start actually having dialogue, we're going to lose this war.