Just wondering...how do other former members feel about those who remain in the org and insist that it benefits them? Do you have a to each his own mindset or something else?

When I still had a couple of close friends in the org, it often got complicated. It was generally okay as long as we stayed away from the topic of sgi, but very uncomfortable (for me, anyway) if they started talking about benefits they had received as a result of their practice, for instance. There was a lot of tongue-biting on my part, because plenty of good things happen to people who don't practice - we all go through ups and downs in life. I came to recognize that even when I was practicing. It was also difficult having a conversation with my now-ex-best friend who would go on and on about all the good fortune and protection she got from her practice, and then go on about how she and her husband were about to lose their house and everything they'd ever worked for with a side of how she didn't like to leave her house and was worried silly about her adult daughter living so many miles away. I perceived those as real disconnects between her professed beliefs and how she was actually living her life. She's kind of an extreme case, but there were so many similarities between her and other people I practiced with who had been in sgi since ikeda was a pup. That friendship ended when I found out how deceitful she'd been about efforts she had made trying to get me back into sgi; once again, though, I'd gotten so many phone calls, emails, greeting cards and other communications from members pretending to friendship when the real motive was to suck me back in.

Honestly, I don't care what a person's spiritual beliefs are as long as the person isn't divorced from reality or buried in some kind of delusion. I still have a couple of friends in the district that I get together with for lunch from time to time. We enjoy each other's company, and they've made it very clear that they don't care whether I'm a member or not. We don't talk about anything sgi-related, because we have lots of other things to talk about. They're pretty loosey-goosy members; they're Indian (Asian sub-continent), and have sort of slid some of the sgi stuff into their own belief frameworks. They don't make the practice the focus of their lives as 98% of the other members have.

I have to admit, though, that it really saddens me when I hear that someone has surrendered their will as so many have, especially because it happens without the person making a conscious decision to do so (I know, because I did the same thing). I've done a great deal of research after leaving the organization, and I think that the extent to which it misleads the members is just unspeakable and their methods despicable. To be honest, if I thought I would make any headway at all I'd be standing outside the parking garage at the community center every first Sunday passing out pamphlets.

Once again, that's just me. Everyone has their own perspective and opinion.

Here's some relevant excerpts from an article entitled, "Are You a Member Of a Cult?" on buddhistchannel.tv. I have added my comments in bold italicized script with my interpretations of how closely these descriptions of a cult accurately correlates with the SGcult and it's leader(s).


"The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘cult' as a system of religious worship, especially one that is expressed in rituals." Like doing gongyo and too numerous to name other sgi rituals.

"It is often used in a derogatory sense with reference to a transient fad." The mere act of chanting itself is a fad for most westerners.

"Another definition, from The Advanced English Dictionary and Thesaurus, defines ‘cult' as an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices" sgi proudly proclaims itself as being an exclusive religious organization - the only organization in existence capable of: 1) saving all mankind (through the exclusion of all other religions - including any other Buddhist sects), and, 2) ushering in a new era of "world peace".

"...an interest followed with exaggerated zeal" The SGcult has exaggerated zeal and then some!

"...a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist or false" "Ex-communicated" fits the bill here. The sgi lost its legitimacy as an orthodox religious org when it got itself thrown out of the Nichiren Shoshu Temple it was formerly associated with.

"Sound familiar? Cultism exists in almost every religion, society and certain organizations, often led by charismatic leaders." That would obviously be (dear leader) Ikeda, and his dog-pack underlings.

"The names of Jim Jones and Charles Manson, amongst others, often come to mind whenever the word ‘cult' is mentioned, due mainly to the reported mass suicide of hundreds of gullible followers who followed their leaders with utter blind faith." gullible followers who followed their leaders with utter blind faith denotes the SGI perfectly. Luckily, SGcult leaders haven't asked the membership to perform "hari-kiru" (ritual suicide) yet - but with an income of 2 billion dollars a year, who would dream of killing that golden goose?.

"The problem with cultism is that it is a Catch-22 situation - people outside the organization can almost always see quite clearly the workings of a cult but for the members within, no amount of convincing and rationale can ever make them realize that they are in a cult organization." This characteristic becomes very evident to SGI cult ex-members that engage in attempts to awaken brainwashed members from their deftly implanted illusions carefully crafted to disguise the true nature of the cult.

"Therein lies the painful dilemma and conundrum for concerned friends and relatives. Many families have hopelessly lost their loved ones to such organizations. Family relationships are strained or broken." This sgi cult characteristic is well-documented within the hundreds of pages of posts here in this forum thread alone.

"Cultism exists in almost every religion." Soka Gakkai is absolutely no exception! Any religion has the potential to (and often does) progress into a cult.

"Cults often come into being whenever there are charismatic leaders who claim to possess certain powers or profess direct communication with gods or deities and are therefore empowered to speak on their behalf." After being ex-communicated by the temple, Ikeda and the SGI disavowed the temple's High Priest and boldly claimed exclusive heritage to "Keichi Myago" (true inheritors) of the Buddhist Law. (Reference this from "A Profile Of SGI):
"It (SGI) also claims that it is now 'directly connected' to Nichiren and Nikko because Soka has converted millions of people to the 'True' Buddhism. Ikeda declares (1992), 'Without our organization, the True Law would be utterly lost. There would be no way to save humanity. This is why supporting and defending Soka is the same as defending and advancing Nichiren Buddhism."

"They allege that they have the power to heal the sick or reverse one's misfortunes." This milk and honey assertion is widely proclaimed by the SGcult.

"These leaders, ...often have a wealth of knowledge, strong persuasive personalities, and are charming, manipulative and cunning. They revel in a sense of power over others." Fits SGI"s narcissistic senior leaders like a glove.

"Their objective is often the attainment of wealth and fame but the ultimate goal is to control and manipulate their followers to do their bidding and be subservient to them. In some religious organizations, the leaders expect unquestionable devotion." This sociopath behavior is common among SGI leaders.

"Fund-raising is definitely a core activity." Like the all-important month of May contribution campaign, for example.

"Often, a cult leader is known as a ‘Guru'. In the normal sense, 'guru' is the equivalent of ‘teacher' (or sensei). The guru (teacher/sensei) is idolized and worshiped by his followers. He is regarded as infallible." Here's an absolutely perfect match up with SGI's supreme leader, Ikeda, and his adoring disciples.

"In Early Buddhism the teacher (mentor) is not infallible, and it is part of the student's duty to point out his faults respectfully. The student also needn't stick to a teacher, should the teacher be deemed incapable." Don't expect to ever hear a peep regarding this concept within the halls of the SGcult. Cults do not tolerate any criticisms, nor do they allow their members to walk away without any opposition or resistance.

Spartacus



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2014 08:07PM by Spartacus.

All of Spartacus' comments are spot-on, but this particular one is most salient in my feelings about current members of sgi:

""The problem with cultism is that it is a Catch-22 situation - people outside the organization can almost always see quite clearly the workings of a cult but for the members within, no amount of convincing and rationale can ever make them realize that they are in a cult organization." This characteristic becomes very evident to SGI cult ex-members that engage in attempts to awaken brainwashed members from their deftly implanted illusions carefully crafted to disguise the true nature of the cult."

There is a level of frustration here that is almost indescribable. Since this is a site for former members, we have insight that goes even further than someone who's never been in the org. While I have nothing but contempt and disgust with the organization itself, I have to remind myself that I wore those same shoes - with a great deal of pride, I might add - for seven years.

Based on my own experience, I'm convinced that there is little that a former-member (much less a complete outsider) can say to an acting-member that would be persuasive. Cult training paints anyone who disagrees with sgi as either a member of the temple or an enemy of the lotus sutra; there is no room in the cult mindset that allows for the possibility that there is something terribly, terribly wrong. It's only when the member him- or herself begins to start asking uncomfortable questions or sees a crack in the façade that can't be sufficiently explained that a light starts to go on.

Read through the posts here, freeyourmind, and follow the links that are so generously sprinkled throughout. There is documented information to support the deceit and dishonesty that sgi flourishes upon; ask your leaders about it, and I can guarantee that you'll either be remonstrated for reading such evil lies (and you need to chant more), that everyone here is a temple-member/enemy of the lotus sutra (chant some more) and that we are all evil lying hell-demons (definitely chant some more, and you really need to make a heart-to-heart connection with sensei). You'll hear a lot of fluster and bluster, but not one documentable fact.

To me, the most fundamental lie that sgi promulgates is that the Lotus Sutra was the final teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha. If you Wikipedia the LS, you'll find that it was compiled between -200/+200 CE. That doesn't demean the sutra, since it was put together from teachings of the Buddha, but he never, ever taught it as a "unit," so to speak. Most of your fellow members won't know or will deny that. The lack of knowledge about anything other than ikeda's flavor of Buddhism is stunning and shocking.

I encourage you to do some independent research; there is stuff out there that has been published by the temple, but it's pretty obvious. Do as your name suggests, and free your mind.

One way to put it is that a cult has a mission statement but its social practices contradict or undermine that mission statement - and members are forbidden to think or speak about this.

Suppose you are told the group exists "to make the world a better place".

Yet you're kept so busy with ritual, with fundraisers, with taking care of the leaders needs and placating supervisors that you have no energy left to be there for your own family, let alone remember the outside world apart from the group.

Another rule of thumb I like but that is not in any office guideline is that many cults deride analytical thinking, exalt nondual realization, attack ego, but its leaders gladly hire and retain experts in ego driven analytical thinking such as attorneys, investment and real estate advisors, as well as
PR advisors.


There is an article describing a new religion in Japan - The God Light Association or GLA for short. I have not yet read the entire article, but when skimming it, found this item that resembles SGI.

"The basis of these Principles is that people of the present age have lost sight of the bonds that should link them to other human beings, to society, to nature, and to their soul's deepest aspiration. These bonds must be reincorporated into the way they behave in their professions. A potential irony here is that involvement in GLA with its intense demand for commitment and participation will also attenuate(weaken) some of those bonds since most member's elective social lives revolve exclusively around other members.

"When members cultivate relationships with non-members, it is less out of respect for them and their elective choices than as prospective converts to GLA".

Quoted from Metaphorical and Metonymical Science: Constructing Authority in a Japanese New Religion by Christan Whelan, Handbook of Religion and Authority of Science, Edited by James R. Lewis and Olav Hammer, Brill, 2011

Here is what makes it tough to understand when one is in a cult - or a bad relationship.

We humans adjust to nearly anything. Especially if someone we trust recommends it.

Or participation gives a temporary feeling of relief and causes us to stick around.

We make allowances for odd things. And recruiters will take care to show newbies the good side of things. And have a ready answer for troubled questions a newbie might ask.

When one becomes surrounded by members of that same group, with its mannerisms and rules, both spoken and unspoken, we are in a wrap around world with its own set of norms. And we lose sensitivity to strangeness and allow our own sense of what is normal to become recalibrated.

If a group permits only pleasant emotions such as smiles, niceness, praise, enthusiasm, and screens out or excludes anyone who brings overt friction, over time one can lose ability to deal with conflict.

Any time I see a guru or group that smiles all the time, talks about love, love love all the time, I always wonder, how do they react when the going gets tough?

And what would happen if some outsider critiqued them or their guru?

I was not in SGI, but can offer a story that illustrates how far gone someone can be.

Years ago, I was emotionally entangled with a campus minister who advised me. Through him and with him, I got active in social justice stuff, up to and including risking arrest to protest US policy in Central America.

Years later, I figured this guy out but it took a very long time.

Then I met a woman who had been in the same social justice circles I had been in.

"I met Pastor X" she said "and I saw how you were attached to him. I was troubled and did not say anything, but I felt a lot of pain seeing the predicment you were in with him. I always had a sense that Pastor X was not a truthful person, that he was hiding a lot."

"Wow!" I told her. "You read him perfectly. Because now I see that very same thing about him that you saw at a glance."

This person said, "I have to tell you that I was entangled with a charismatic leader, too. A leader who lied."

"So you could see that I was involved with a dishonest person, yet you were yourself entangled with a dishonest person and didnt yet know it yourself?"

"Yep".

I shook my head. "Its like we were prisoners in neighboring jails. You could see *I* was in jail, while being in your own jail cell not yet knowing it."

And, as you say, corboy, it doesn't just happen in the confines of a religious venue. It happens in relationships - both amorous and platonic. Every one has had a bad romantic relationship, but what about those toxic friends that we just can't get our heads around evicting from our lives? There were employees at companies where I've worked who exhibited the same slavish veneration for the organization or a manager. I even spoke with someone who described his relationship with a political party as cult-like. I think that there is just something elemental in our psyche that makes us vulnerable to hand our analytical thinking over at the door. At one point, I thought that it was sort of a personality flaw or quirk that made us susceptible, but when I think about the different kinds of groups that bring out that same tunnel-vision mentality, where reason and documented facts don't make a dent? It's everywhere, and we all have it. Tea-party members believe in their own kind of magic, democrats another . . . Star Wars fanatics and vegans have theirs. We all have our own what-evers that will trigger the crazy. Historic re-enactors? Crazy. Baseball-card collectors? Crazy. It's the level and radius of damage that the obsession causes. Once you've gotten to the stage where it controls your life and your rational thinking, then it's a problem. It's like alcoholism or drug-addiction; you're so convinced that you're the one who's right and everyone else is wrong, nothing short of something giving you a real slam-dunk is going to snap some sense into you. And when you stop being obsessed by whatever you're obsessed with, there's the danger of tipping over into an obsession with that. How can you smoke that - that's disgusting. Don't you think you've had enough to drink? OMG, how can you eat that slop? And it has the same tone of self-righteousness that your previous crazy-talk had. I think we human beings just have something going on in our heads that leads us into going overboard when we think something is working for us, and it just depends on what trips our individual triggers.

Take a breath . . . pant, pant, pant. Sorry for the rant!

And, as you say, corboy, it doesn't just happen in the confines of a religious venue. It happens in relationships - both amorous and platonic. Every one has had a bad romantic relationship, but what about those toxic friends that we just can't get our heads around evicting from our lives? There were employees at companies where I've worked who exhibited the same slavish veneration for the organization or a manager. I even spoke with someone who described his relationship with a political party as cult-like. I think that there is just something elemental in our psyche that makes us vulnerable to hand our analytical thinking over at the door under the right circumstances. At one point, I thought that it was sort of a personality flaw or quirk that made us susceptible, but when I think about the different kinds of groups that bring out that same tunnel-vision mentality, where reason and documented facts don't make a dent? It's everywhere, and we all have it. Tea-party members believe in their own kind of magic, democrats another . . . Star Wars fanatics and vegans have theirs. We all have our own what-evers that will trigger the crazy. Historic re-enactors? Crazy. Baseball-card collectors? Crazy. It's the level and radius of damage that the obsession causes. Once you've gotten to the stage where it controls your life and your rational thinking, then it's a problem. It's like alcoholism or drug-addiction; you're so convinced that you're the one who's right and everyone else is wrong, nothing short of something giving you a real slam-dunk is going to snap some sense into you. And then you run the risk of becoming obsessed over how you're over your previous obsession. Don't smoke that- that's disgusting. Don't you think you've had enough to drink? How can you believe that stupid shit? It's almost like by over-compensating in the other direction, we're trying to convince ourselves that we were never in those very shoes. And, speaking for myself, I would be terrified to ever go to another sgi meeting . . . what if they got back into my head again? So I go into a blathering mode; by telling someone else how awful and terrible it was, I am reiterating all that to myself.

Excuse me. I'm going to go touch everything in my apartment three times again.

Hi, freeyourmind! You're in good company here :)

"Just wondering...how do other former members feel about those who remain in the org and insist that it benefits them? Do you have a to each his own mindset or something else?"

Well, since I can see how deluded I myself was and how I damaged my own life thereby while a member of SGI-USA, I can talk about that. And I can talk about damaging behavior I have seen other members engage in at the SGI-USA's behest.

For example, members and leaders will often downplay "chant for whatever you want," but it's most definitely the premier sales slogan of SGI-USA. I was at a meeting where Theresa Hauber, wife of Soka University big cheese Eric Hauber, told about how she filled in a sheet of yellow legal paper - front AND back - with everything she wanted to get in her 90-day trial period. And she got everything.

For people who are suffering, this sort of "testimony", especially when given by someone who is apparently affluent and satisfied, is indeed compelling.

But "chant for what you want" doesn't work and can, in fact, damage your life. Remember how one of Buddhism's Four Noble Truths is that "Attachment causes suffering"? Chanting for what you want strengthens attachment. It did for me.

An example: I knew this woman in the SGI-USA. She had been a leader and she had a son my son's age - they were friends. Well, her son suffered a serious back injury in a freak accident - he was left mostly paralyzed and crippled. So the SGI-USA led 3-hr chanting sessions every Sunday morning at the community center for him to recover from this injury (and other things - it was a somewhat open chanting session). She then had chanting sessions at her house every Saturday morning for 3 hours. For months. All this time, the little crippled boy is there observing all these people chanting for him to get better.

Sure, you might say, he was able to see how many people really cared about him. But what of the message? That all these people are taking time out of their lives because they don't want him to be crippled! But he's crippled! It's not a choice! It's a permanent injury that will never get better and will only get worse! How is his mom chanting balls-to-the-wall for him to get better going to help him adjust to his new reality of being crippled??

See, REAL Buddhism is about accepting reality as it is. Not attempting to bend reality to our will. I find the former far more psychologically healthy than the latter, and the latter is what I saw and see in SGI-USA pseudo-Buddhism.

Just for the record, I was dissatisfied within the SGI-USA by the authoritarianism, nay, dictatorship of the organization and the way the leaders attempted to run members' and junior leaders' lives; with the completely lack of financial transparency and lack of democracy; with the padding of membership numbers; and with the increasing deification of and obsession with that awful little Japanese rich boy fatman, but what really freed me was learning about REAL Buddhism.

See, I started going online and looking up stuff and having rousing arguments on message boards about religion and stuff, and when I learned more about REAL Buddhism, I realized that the SGI-USA was completely off. For example, the emptiness doctrine of Buddhism coupled with the "attachments" truth (above) means that, in order to attain enlightenment, one must discard EVERY attachment. Yet in SGI-USA we're told to have an objective of "chanting until the very last moment of your life." No enlightenment for YOU! One must be attached to NOTHING.

There were two sources that changed my life. One was the Kalama Sutra, summarized here:

Quote

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

That's the short form. If you'd like to read the whole thing - it's a nice read - go here: [www.accesstoinsight.org]

The other was this article on Nagarjuna: [www.thezensite.com]

Quote

However, ultimately no truth for the Maadhyamika is "absolutely true." All truths are essentially pragmatic in character and eventually have to be abandoned. Whether they are true is based on whether they can make one clinging or non-clinging. Their truth-values are their effectiveness as a means (upaaya) to salvation. The Twofold Truth is like a medicine;it is used to eliminate all extreme views and metaphysical speculations. In order to refute the annihilationist, the Buddha may say that existence is real. And for the sake of rejecting the eternalist, he may claim that existence is unreal. As long as the Buddha's teachings are able to help people to remove attachments, they can be accepted as "truths." After all extremes and attachments are banished from the mind, the so-called truths are no longer needed and hence are not "truths" any more. One should be "empty" of all truths and lean on nothing.

To understand the "empty" nature of all truths one should realize, according to Chi-tsang, that "the refutation of erroneous views is the illumination of right view." The so-called refutation of erroneous views, in a philosophical context, is a declaration that all metaphysical views are erroneous and ought to be rejected. To assert that all theories are erroneous views neither entails nor implies that one has to have any "view". For the Maadhyamikas the refutation of erroneous views and the illumination of right views are not two separate things or acts but the same. A right view is not a view in itself; rather, it is the absence of views. If a right view is held in place of an erroneous one, the right view itself would become one-sided and would require refutation. The point the Maadhyamikas want to accentuate, expressed in contemporary terms, is that one should refute all metaphysical views, and to do so does not require the presentation of another metaphysical view, but simply forgetting or ignoring all metaphysics.

Like "emptiness," the words such as "right" and "wrong" or "erroneous" are really empty terms without reference to any definite entities or things. The so-called right view is actually as empty as the wrong view. It is cited as right "only when there is neither affirmation nor negation." If possible, one should not use the term. But We are forced to use the word 'right' (chiang ming cheng) in order to put an end to wrong. Once wrong has been ended, then neither does right remain. Therefore the mind is attached to nothing.

To obtain ultimate enlightenment, one has to go beyond "right" and "wrong," or "true" and "false," and see the empty nature of all things. To realize this is praj~naa (true wisdom).

So the purpose of the Buddha's teachings was to teach us how to understand our own minds and thought processes, so that we could perceive our own delusions and attachments. Once we rid ourselves of these misperceptions, we would be able to perceive reality without running it first through various layers of filters of our own misperceived past experience and misunderstandings about how reality works. Once we knew how to think, we would not need Buddhism any more.

I know that Nichiren wrote that "Zen is the work of devils" but if you have to carefully avoid sources, you're rather betraying that your faith is so fragile that you are afraid something might shake it. "You" in the general sense, of course, not you personally. YOU're here! That shows me you've got a fair degree of confidence. Limiting members' access to information is a typical cult tactic.

"Devils" don't really exist. Nichiren just wanted the government to give him a religious monopoly and make him a superstar. So naturally, he had only mean, ugly things to say about all the other Buddhisms. I learned a bit about Theravada - I attended one of their "gongyos" for a few minutes, and I was really impressed. Their gongyo books have the translation written beneath the phonetic pronunciation, you see, so I could tell exactly what I was saying! And it was very nice.

"As you read through, you'll find the big reveal as to how s-u draws in non-member students; anyone whose family has a less-than $50k annual income gets free tuition. Brilliant! Let's bring in all those low-income kids, encourage them to believe that their fortune lies in chanting, and that sgi is the only thing that loves you!"

Yeah, but that's stupid. First of all, there's no guarantee that these students are going to embrace SGI-USA just because they're getting free tuition. (And it's family income below $60K.) Second of all, THEY'RE POOR! It is rare for children to break out of their family's income situation. I know it happens, but it's statistically insignificant. Surely SGI-USA could buy more reliable followers for less - say, give out $1,000 grants to deserving people - on a recurring but unpredictable basis?

Quote

Tuition at Soka University for the 2008-2009 academic year is $23,434, and room and board is $9,000. About 80% of SUA students currently receive some form of financial aid. All students live in campus residence halls.

So Soka U is forgoing, what, just the tuition? Are the poor students still responsible for paying their own room and board and required insurance ($9K)?

Aha:

Quote

Beginning in the 2008-2009 academic year, all admitted students to the BA in Liberal Arts program whose annual family income is $60,000 or less will receive free tuition. Room and board fees will still apply. [www.soka.edu]

So they're still collecting money. Even from the poor.

Quote

Tution for all Residents: $27,214
Room and Board or estimated off campus living expense: $10,628
Books and Supplies: $1,000
Other Fees: $932

At current published tuition rates, the estimated total tuition and living expense cost of a 4 year bachelor's degree at Soka University of America is $159,096 for students graduating in normal time. Our methodology for estimating the 4 year cost is a multiple of the most recent reported annual cost and does not factor in tuition increases.

In the past five years, this school's published in-state tuition and fee total rose from $20,856 to $27,226. This amounts to an average annual price increase of 6.1%. Nationally, university tuition prices are rising around 5% per year. [www.collegecalc.org]

At least the "free tuition" appears to consist of 100% grants, not loans as I suspected.

They *SAY* they offer free tuition, but I have so far not been able to find any source that lists how many students actually have received free tuition since the policy was instituted. Wouldn't that be a gas, if they were saying "Free tuition for the poor!" and then not actually awarding any??? After all, they don't accept all their applicants (they only accept about 46%), and they can turn down applicants for any reason O_O



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2014 03:55AM by StillTaitenAndProud.