Part 2

On these small but significant changes hangs the tale. The more than fifty-year cooperation between the largest Nichiren sect, Nichiren Shoshu (whose Head Temple Taiseki-ji is at the base of Mt. Fuji and houses Nichiren's greatest material legacy, the Dai-Gohonzon) and the Soka Gakkai lay organization came to an end in 1991. The practitioners of Nichiren's Buddhism were faced with a choice. Most stayed to practice with the Soka Gakkai organization which had recruited them. Others, disenchanted with Soka Gakkai, had been practicing at the temples for a long time and stayed there. Some left Soka Gakkai at this point to practice with the temple. These latter two groups became the most hardened advocates of the priestly point of view. And finally, some simply abandoned their practice and gave up their devotion to the Lotus Sutra. However it was perceived and experienced, the split between the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood and the Soka Gakkai brought with it dramatic changes.

Introduction
What is the source of religious authority? Revelation of holy scripture? An unbroken line of priestly succession? The acceptance of the faithful that the authority is legitimate? The fulfillment of prophecy in the teachings of a religion's founder? An acknowledged series of incarnations of an esteemed teacher? A group's faith connection with a specific sacred person such as a guru or saint or preacher? Or perhaps it is the individual's worship of and inner relationship with a source of sacred power such as a holy place or sacred object?

The answers to these questions depend on the nature of a group's essential religious expression. If it has a priestly, mystical, otherworldly focus, it will answer them in one way. If it has a pragmatic, goal-oriented, this-worldly focus, it will have a different set of answers. We will see how this distinction plays itself out in the split between the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood and the Soka Gakkai lay organization. This priesthood-laity split will be compared to a similar split, which took place in 16th century Europe, the Protestant Reformation.

When religious groups are forming around a charismatic leader, one who is able to express sacred power in the earthly realm, these questions are not usually important to the members of the group. What is important is the connection with the All-that-is that the leader makes accessible to the followers. That immediate experience creates the group's own legitimacy. It is as if the leader's charismatic energy so embraces the followers that their connection is established. Faith in and practice of the leader's teachings follows naturally.

During the leader's lifetime, this is not problematic because the experience of power is so direct. As we have seen countless times in history and in recent decades, it is at the death of a group's founder that the questions about religious authority arise. All the questions of legitimacy, of who has the right to represent a religious tradition, come to the fore.

The choice to put the Nichiren Shoshu-Soka Gakkai split into a larger historical context is deliberate. The separation of two organizations that worked together in common cause, the propagation of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, for more than fifty years, has not come without strong feelings on both sides. In this doctrinal dispute, as we might observe in an acrimonious divorce, accusations have been made, both sides have acted out in their anger at one another, and each party feels aggrieved. Each side has documented its case. In the heat of the separation, an analysis of the "causes" of the split has come from both sides.

Taking a broader view, it is probable that forces were at work from the beginning that doomed the relationship. At any point, other choices might have been made that would have made both groups able to work together in light of their shared faith in the Gohonzon, but they were not. It is the intention of this writer to present an objective analysis from an outsider's viewpoint of the causes and implications of the Nichiren Shoshu-Soka Gakkai split.

A note on the methods used to investigate this split is in order.

Since 1973 this author has carried out research on the then united group [known as Nichiren Shoshu Academy and later Nichiren Shoshu of America (NSA) and Nichiren Shoshu-Soka Gakkai of America (also NSA)] using the technique of participant observation. Participant observation demands that the researcher maintain a kind of double vision. One participates in group activities "as if" one were a believer, and tries to understand the believer's experience from within. One also observes the group from outside, collecting data and interviewing adherents. This approach is urban anthropology, in which the religious group is seen as analogous to a "tribe" whose cultural system can be learned from both perspectives. In this case members of the group knew that the researcher was present, since the symbols of the role, a tape recorder, a camera, and a notebook were always visible, but they also tended to forget that she was "other." She became "almost a member" by sheer dint of her continued presence in the group.

Although I never became a practicing Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist, I attended weekly Soka Gakkai meetings for nearly three years, the 1976 NSA Bicentennial Convention in New York City, and occasional meetings in the years since. At meetings I engaged in the central practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, though I did not do so as a believer.

Since 1991, I have had many conversations with both Nichiren Shoshu Temple practitioners, and members and leaders of SGI-USA. There are aspects of Nichiren Buddhist practice, which resonate strongly with me. At the same time, it is not my own spiritual path. Through this process of doing research, I have learned a great deal about honoring ways that are not my own. This is a continual challenge, both personally and professionally, but one which has been a great teacher.

This participant observation research began during NSA's intensive recruitment efforts in the early seventies and continued through many organizational and leadership changes up to the present. Through that period of time the researcher's ability to gather information and talk to members varied. During the early years, the higher Soka Gakkai leadership was somewhat remote and difficult to reach. It was easier to talk to regular members and local leaders. Priests were not yet established in temples on the East Coast where research was carried out, and they were inaccessible. As late as 1985, temples were off-limits to those who were not members of Soka Gakkai.

With the split, this changed. At this point, only those who were not Soka Gakkai members were welcome at the temple. However, the priests remained remote and it was very difficult to contact members or attend meetings of the temple-centered lay groups. When this researcher hired an interpreter and set up a meeting, the appointment to interview the chief Nichiren Shoshu Priest in the Washington, DC, area was cancelled an hour before it was to take place. Approval from the Overseas Bureau was required, but there was no procedure for obtaining it. I could visit the temple but was not able to attend services there. I had conversations with a few temple practitioners and was given some written information about the split from the temple point of view. My small contribution to the temple to cover the costs of printing this information was returned to me the next week because "we refuse donations except from believers to avoid political influence.” They clearly wanted no contact with outsiders.