On Friday mornings I chant with a friend who shares some of my frustrations regarding the SGI-USA. She has been a member longer than I have and has consistently worked "within the system" to make it a better place for local people to learn about Nichiren Buddhism.

For the past few weeks, we've been talking about the reform declaration unavailable and the issues it raises. I mention this because I want to emphasize that I take the reform declaration seriously, as I think many SGI-USA members do. There are probably hundreds of "dialogues" similar to our Friday morning meetings going on all over the country.

At the start of our discussions, my friend posed the question, "Would you sign your name to the reform declaration?" I've been thinking about it.

Part of me would like to sign in solidarity with the people who wrote it, because they're now being slandered and dissed. I'm disgusted that some leaders want to drive the reformers out of the organization. That's just not right.

But, no, I wouldn't sign the declaration. Going through it point-by-point, there are too many things I disagree with.

American ideals?

For example, the declaration says: "We support the evolution of Nichiren Buddhism into a form compatible with American ideals and modern times. These include compassion toward all, anger toward none, and respect for individuals in their efforts toward spiritual growth."

Sounds good, but I agree with Scott Hardey unavailable that we should strive to find what is universal in Buddhism, rather than try to make it more American.

Besides, I disagree that "American ideals" include "compassion toward all, anger toward none, and respect for individuals in their efforts toward spiritual growth," especially considering that we're a nation at war right now. Most of us are plenty angry. The question is how to create value with anger.

I agree, however, that Nichiren Buddhism and the SGI are steeped in Japanese-ness. Japanese social customs and expectations have been imported into SGI-USA, and this is a problem. The recent G-K-I Exhibit and the odd insistence on staging youth rallies come to mind. By Japanese standards, I guess these are great things. But in the US it comes across as embarrassingly self-congratulatory or, in the case of our youth mania, makes us sound like we're recruiting young people la Hitler Youth.

I support SGI-USA being more in tune with American cultural expectations. But I think the ideals we embrace should be Buddhist -- such as the bodhisattva ideal -- rather than distinctly American.

The split with Nichiren Shoshu

The declaration says, "We have become increasingly concerned with the direction in which SGI-USA is heading, especially since the split with Nichiren Shoshu in 1990."

I think the split was the best thing that ever happened to SGI-USA. It has led to significant reforms, such as the change in gongyo. The split also made it necessary for SGI-USA to clarify which doctrines it embraces as valid in Nichiren Buddhism. While the SGI-USA hasn't always been convincing in its arguments, especially concerning the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon, at least the organization is reexamining doctrines that we used to take for granted.

On the reform message boards, doctrinal issues are often moderated as being "off topic." But I think that doctrinal issues are integral to organizational reform. The purpose of the organization is to support the practice of Nichiren Buddhism and accomplish kosen-rufu. In order to fulfill our purpose, we have to have a clear understanding of what "practice" and "kosen-rufu" mean, and that involves the clarification of teachings.

Regarding the Nichiren Shoshu split, the reform declaration says, "Led by President Ikeda, SGI-USA has followed the Japanese Soka Gakkai into a war against another Buddhist sect, with no articulated goals.... We believe that SGI-USA should disband Soka Spirit and unilaterally end the war."

I disagree. I don't see it as a war. I see it as matter of distinguishing false doctrines from useful ones.

The SGI-USA botched the presentation of the Temple Issue from the very beginning -- this goes back to not understanding American cultural expectations. All the petty tabloid-style stuff turned people off and confused people about the point of the whole exercise. Some members still think that the point is to discredit Nikken at all costs. But many members recognize that Soka Spirit is about dealing with the larger issues of authoritarianism and abuse of power.

I don't agree that Soka Spirit should be disbanded -- it's still evolving into a movement that can convey a universal response to the universal problem of authoritarianism. It hasn't reached that goal yet, but it's trying to get there.

More "culture clash"

The reform declaration says, "SGI-USA is controlled from Japan, contrary to SGI Charter Article 6. SGI-USA must create and follow its own constitution and become independent from Japan."

Well, yeah, kinda. I wish the leaders would just be honest about this and admit how Japan-centric the organization is.

I don't know about becoming "independent from Japan" though, since I see nothing wrong with being interdependent with Japan. I just object to being controlled by Japan.

To be fair, there have been times when SGI-USA has refused to follow dictates from Japan, such as the request that all US members be required to exchange their Nikken Gohonzon. Instead of doing what Japan wanted them to do, the SGI-USA leaders handled the exchange in a way that they felt was more appropriate for the US.

Maybe SGI-USA leaders already have the power and latitude to adopt or reject policies based on sensitivity to American culture. But I worry that the leaders are, on the whole, so reverential toward Japan that they don't question the Japanese-ness as much as they should.

This Japanese-ness includes what the reformers call "adulation of the leader" and "one true sect rhetoric." As I see it, these two "problems" can be solved by becoming aware of how these messages sound to mainstream America, and finding a better way to convey the efficacy of Nichiren Buddhism.

"Undemocratic leadership structure"

The declaration says, "Top down appointment of leaders, secret decision making processes, and a lack of accountability or appeal procedures, are not an effective way to run an organization in America. We need a more democratic, less centralized organizational structure, with more input from the members, and leaders who understand American culture and are willing to represent the American members."

Short of holding caucuses and elections, I don't know how the reformers propose to make the leadership more democratic. I don't favor elections because faith should not be ruled by popularity. Also, no election is corruption-proof.

I have no problem with SGI-USA appointing and hiring leaders in the same way that a business puts people in managerial positions. In a business, tenure and promotions are tied to results. If a manager consistently screws up, he or she is usually replaced.

Unfortunately, leadership appointments in SGI-USA aren't handled as they would be in a good business. Too many SGI-USA leaders have "jobs for life" or "leadership positions for life," creating an environment that favors inertia and resists innovation.

If the organization isn't growing in a particular area of the country, I think that the "higher ups" should have the latitude to change the local leadership. This, of course, is totally undemocratic. But I think leaders need to be able to make personnel changes when necessary. My complaint is not that the leadership structure is undemocratic, but that major leadership changes aren't made often enough and based on clear organizational goals.

Publications

The declaration reads, "The format and content of the World Tribune has led to many members declining to subscribe to it, and many of those who subscribe out of loyalty don't read it. The cheerleading style of the World Tribune has limited appeal to many members, and is particularly unhelpful for introducing new members to Buddhism."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's not so simple. For months I've been putting off writing an article about this. I'm going to meet with a friend who works in the SGI-USA publications dept. this week. I'll reserve my comments until after the meeting.

Reform committee

The reformers state, "Our intention is not simply to describe the problems we see. We intend to establish a structured group that can channel the efforts of people who are interested in working for the reform of SGI-USA."

I feel that I am a person "interested in working for the reform of SGI-USA," but I don't want to participate in a structured reform group. The idea of establishing a "reform committee" seems to reinforce the perception that the SGI-USA operates bureaucratically. Maybe it does to some extent, but I don't think we should add to the bureaucracy.

Committees can be useful when there's a specific plan to implement. But I don't feel that the reform declaration provides a specific plan. Even if it did, implementing it would force the reformer's plan on the rest of us, which would be contrary to their own stated ideal of democratic reform.

Besides, I think that individuals who talk and listen and take action locally -- like my Friday morning toso buddy -- are more effective at creating change than committees.

Grassroots members are talking about the reform declaration -- why try to control or "channel" that activity by establishing a committee to oversee it? An oversight committee for "bottom up" change sounds pretty "top down" to me.

In conclusion...

I think that the reformers sincerely want the SGI-USA to be a great place for everyone to practice Buddhism. Their views about the problems in SGI-USA are not the only views, of course. And their suggestions for improvement are not the only ones worthy of consideration.

Instead of blasting these members or pretending that the declaration is not "pertinent," I think SGI-USA should thank the reformers for presenting a good springboard for dialogue.