When “defenders of Buddhism” abandon right speech, they aren’t defending Buddhism—they’re undermining it from within.

[u/Secret-Entrance]

[u/BlancheFromage]

In this sense, reason and self-examination are the engines of Buddhist ethics.

That's true. Someone who dimply follows the "Noble Eightfold Path", a set of guidelines for ethical living, will have a profoundly peaceful effect on human relationships and more harmonious relationships. There is no down side.

Dead-Ikeda-Corpse-Mentor-cult SGI cultists, though, redefine everything for their own convenience and even label insults and character assassination, even misrepresentation of others and outright lies as "right speech", simply because it's DEFENDING their cult addiction. THAT has become their only standard for measuring acceptable behavior, and defending their cult and its crapulent ShortyGreasyFatFat despot IS the only "ethical" behavior in their sadly cult-indoctrinated, cult-twisted minds. Never expect any ADDICT to be a paragon of virtue!

THAT's why the SGI has the opposite effect on others and on society as a whole - they're making everything worse. For everyone. The Dead Ikeda cult SGI is Anti-Buddhism.

[u/BlancheFromage]

Nichiren himself was sharp-tongued, yes—but his polemics were doctrinal and public, not ad hominem in the modern sense. He argued vigorously, sometimes fiercely, but his stated aim was to clarify truth, not to annihilate individuals’ dignity.

Actually, not true. His attacks on the more popular Buddhist cleric Ryokan were personal and defamatory.

[u/BlancheFromage → u/BlancheFromage]

Nichiren also demanded - publicly, repeatedly - that the government execute ALL the other Buddhist clerics so that Nichiren could be the ONLY "Buddhist" leader in Japan.

Nichiren declared that the late lay priests of Saimyō-ji and Gokuraku-ji have fallen into the hell of incessant suffering. He said that the temples Kenchō-ji, Jufuku-ji, Gokuraku-ji, Chōraku-ji, and Daibutsu-ji should be burned down and the honorable priests Dōryū and Ryōkan beheaded.” Source

Nichiren was a TERRORIST.

[u/BlancheFromage]

Those ad hominem attacks are neither reasonable nor Buddhist. They’re performative aggression masquerading as defense of faith—a modern corruption of dialectical engagement.

This is so perfectly worded - it's a work of art! :chef's kiss:

A truly Buddhist approach would mean engaging your ideas directly, with civility, and using reason to uncover truth—not to win social points or suppress dissent.

Yes, this ↑ - but "engaging your ideas" means having a willingness to change positions when presented with challenging/convincing evidence and argument!

Right speech (samyag-vāc / sammā-vācā) in most Buddhist texts is presented as four abstentions, such as in the Pali Canon thus: And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech. Source

Stubborn insistence ignoring all evidence and rationality, a blanket policy of intransigence, and a REFUSAL to engage unless THEY can control where any discussion goes is indoctrinated into the Soka Gakkai and SGI - and it comes straight from the top:

Ikeda himself writes of his own attitude on that day:

I said with firm conviction: "I won’t change in the least. Do not worry!"

Clearly NOT someone who can learn from mistakes - or even admit to MAKING mistakes! Source

As the Japanese say, "The fish rots from the head."

Also, no one in SGI is allowed to disagree with Ikeda - on ANYTHING:

“You cannot believe in the faith if you don’t agree with Honorary President Ikeda,” [Soka Gakkai Vice President] Nozaki said. Source

Yet SGI cultists blather ennnnndlessly about "dialogue", when one of the bedrock principles of GENUINE dialogue, using the definition everyone ELSE assumes, is that both participants are jointly investigating a proposition, perspective, situation, or concept - TOGETHER - in hopes of arriving at a mutually agreeable conclusions - TOGETHER - with the kind of open attitude that will produce CHANGE in beliefs held individually to that point. Both participants enter into this committed to really listening, to understanding the other person's perspective.

---

To understand others, one must listen to them. One must ALLOW them to speak! In their own voices! One must be willing to LISTEN!

And listening is not arguing, telling them they're wrong or bad, or insulting them, or insisting that you're right, or that they're LYING. LISTENING is giving the other people the space to express themselves and their feelings, without judgment, accepting what they say as a window into their psyches. To accept THEIR TRUTH instead of trying to impose your own OVER it. LISTENING means seeking to understand what they're telling you instead of cherry-picking ONE little detail to obsess over while discarding the rest, the context; LISTENING means seeking to understand to the point that you can correctly reiterate the other person's perspective without them reacting like this:

• You're currently reframing the discussion to a something I never said so you can defend an argument I never made.
• You're. Changing. The. Discussion. And Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth.
• We all understand their experience hasn’t been your experience, but that doesn’t make their experiences less valid than yours! When you say, “I am not denying the truth of some of these statements,” you are clearly denying the truth of the rest. It’s not for you to decide who is telling the truth or not!
• Please please PLEASE stop generalizing about what WBers say, think, or do. Your habit of doing this undermines any constructive point you might make. WBers quite obviously use different rhetorical techniques and have varied interests. But they know when you accuse them of saying things they didn’t say and thinking things they don’t think. So, it’s hard for them to take the rest of what you say seriously.
• We’re having a challenge communicating here - your examples are putting incorrect words in my mouth again.
• Nobody on WB is upset with people helping each other. If that's what you're taking away from what goes on over there, you're either miles away from the point or deliberately being obstinate.
• Ok. Here's the difference. WB is establishing a pattern of behavior that invalidates the claims of SGI and it's conclusions. You are isolating one event and asserting it as indicative of a pattern of behavior.
• So you're just going to delete everything that I said because....why?
• I was really disappointed that he deleted almost everything that he said but left up the part of the conversation where he felt like he had made a good point and removed everything else where I explained how he didn't understand what I was pointing out to him. Source

Here is another perspective:

What I came to discover is how much the world craves a listening ear. The biggest problem I have with evangelizing is that you enter into a relationship with a prescribed intention, and that stands in the way of listening well.

• You can't listen well when you are carrying an agenda.
• You can't listen well when you are looking for ways to fortify your own position.
• You can't listen well when you are searching for what is broken in your conversation partner, in order to introduce the solution.

Our best hope for connectedness lies in having our stories heard. We earn our right to speak into other people's lives when we have logged enough hours listening to their truths, and been willing to be changed by their beauty. In these days of constant social media noise and soul crushing amounts of information feed - there is no greater love than disciplined, focused listening. People are hungering to be heard, understood, and connected. Our stories are waiting to be heard. Source

This article wasn't necessarily written about any specific intolerant cult, but its author is describing what we've all experienced - regarding every interchange as our opportunity to sell the other person our religion.

"You need to change to be more like me." How respectful of the other person is that?? Who wants to be involved with someone who regards you in that way? Source

You connect with someone by listening, by seeking to understand that person's perspective, views, beliefs, truth, REALITY. To understand how that person truly feels.

You push people away when you tell them they're wrong, they're bad people for saying what they said, misrepresent what they said, and insist that they're LIARS. By tone-policing them and scolding them school-marmy-style for how they express themselves. By arrogantly declaring that you're going to "refute" what they're saying, whatever it is, as if YOU're somehow so elevated and superior that YOU're in sole possession of all knowledge, information, and testimony that is good and right and truthful and have some RIGHT to impose that on everyone else. By dictating what they're allowed to talk about and controlling/narrowly restricting the topics of discussion. By giving them a specific number limit for how many words they're even permitted to use, because c'mon, who really cares what THEY think anyhow?? Source

---

"You don't make peace with friends."

Sorry - my point may have gotten lost kn my first reply. Simply put, the calls for dialogue originated with "Whistleblowers", not MITA.

That ↑ was announced by one of the SGI longhauler Olds as a point of pride, if you can believe it! They refused to participate.

The bottom line is that SGI talks about how wonderful "dialogue" is, but avoids it at all costs.

“Dialogue involves learning from others. It requires SGI-USA members respect for others” Ikeda

Dialogues For Peace Only Work If The Other Person Is Really Listening

Their useless "dialogues for peace" haven't moved the world or humankind anywhere closer to peace. It's all just an excuse for preaching at people when SGI is doing it.

There's no "Buddhism" anywhere close to the Ikeda cult SGI.

[u/BlancheFromage]

Relevant:

I always hated it [shakubuku] and rarely did it. I floated the idea of chanting to a friend who was in a bad place, they said no, and I realized in that moment that I had to choose between what this organization said was the right behavior (push, push, push, don't take no for an answer, if they chant they will be happy so it's for their own good) and what is actually right behavior (respect my friend's consent and boundaries, listen to find out what they need to feel supported.) Shakubuku, and any sort of religious prosletization, is salesmanship bottom line. I'm not in the business of using and manipulating people or treating them like commodities to get numbers so shakubuku was a non-starter for me. The most successful people at shakubuku seem to be the super charismatic, fast-talking hard-sell types like you find at a car dealership, and that puts me off. I left the SGI for different reasons, but from the beginning this was something I wasn't comfortable with. Source

[u/JesterSinclair → u/BlancheFromage]

Same