Talk:Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / Religion (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:45, March 26, 2017 (JST, Heisei 29) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Religion task force.
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sokka Gakkai[edit]

We do not need a large word for word account from Sokka Gakkai. This is a encyclopedia and it does not need it nor the mulitple references to the organization. Nor does Soka Gakkai own the Daimoku. Thank You Bsjapan (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Sokka Gakkai sect tries to use this mantra as a hook to catch naive satori-seekers should at least be mentioned...-- (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

The whole "Meaning" section was copied word for word from that SGI website last March, replacing the previous version of that section. I reverted it back to the old version. - bethenco (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate why this is a copyright violation again? Because there is a right to use works for purely academic purposes. Moreover, whether or not you personally respect or appreciate the Soka Gakkai, it is the leading authority on the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Before the Nichiren Shoshu Temple Excommunicated Them In 1991, the Soka Gakkai supported their cause to propagate the writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Josei Toda was the leading force behind getting the writings translated into English. Josei Toda was second president of the Soka Gakkai. Please understand this point. - 517PM 6 NOVEMBER 2011
Any content that is not released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), the license of Wikipedia, or a compatible license, or in the public domain, or otherwise usable without copyright restriction under the terms of Wikipedia policy, cannot be used word for word. At best, the ideas in the source material may be otherwise conveyed with the source given as a reference, and/or a specific quotation from a notable reliable source, per Wikipedia's definitions of the word, may be given specifically as a quotation with reference. Wikipedia does not denote any spiritual organization the "leading authority" over another to maintain encyclopedic neutrality. --Shruti14 talksign 03:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I am in doubt about the final external link in the list, especially its statements about psychology. No doubt some pyschology experts are taking this line, but the statement seems like an overgeneralization. What do others think?

I agree completely. It looks like rubbish to me. Probably an advertisement. - Nat Krause 08:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The questions is: Where to delete from? Does the reference to the flick have any relevance to people seriously looking for info on the subject? My instinct would be to zap the whole para, but I don't want to be accused of doing anything gratuitously. The final link looks like an ad to me too&mdashor at least an invite to try somebody's mantra out. Jim_Lockhart 08:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The whole paragraph looks weird to me. I think it should all be removed. In fact, I will remove it myself. - Nat Krause 09:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would suspect we're talking about the movie "The Last Detail"? If so, yes it has some relevance, this is why: This mantra came the the US in the 60s mostly, via Japanese war brides. And they organized profusely (under Soka Gakkai) to spread this Buddhism, and thus the mantra. The movie is pertaining to that. I would also mention less important mentions of it for obvious reasons (such things may lead to the person coming to this page, yes?) For example, I forget which episode, but in the Simpsons, Homer Simpson writes a "dear john" letter on his palm to tell a crush named, "Mindy" he plans to stay loyal, etc.... Due to his nervousness, the palm gets all sweaty and instead he reads something like "Murphy, I think, a Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, [etc.]". This is relevant enough to have under a "in American Culture" section or something like that.

Frankly, whomever has been editing this page has really wrecked it, there's practically nothing here now. Why not just have the title as the page itself if this is where wiki is heading? Shame on whoever has done this to this page: It is now essentially sparse, beyond limited, partially incorrect, and so short it appears written by a drunk or disinterested (in WIKI mind you) person.... One would have to suspect sabotage or a war of some sort went on here to find the ruins I see compared to what was here a few years ago. Perhaps some trigger happy authors need to check their head sizes? This is atrocious.Bob the Lunatic (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


Penultimate does indeed mean 'second to last', see this quote from's WordNet entry:


      adj : next to the last; "the author inadvertently reveals the
            murderer in the penultimate chapter"; "the figures in
            the next-to-last column" [syn: next-to-last]
      n : the next to last syllable in a word [syn: penult, penultima]

I suspect that ultimate is instead what the author intends. -- wackyvorlon

The sentence in question is internally confused. The Lotus Sutra is definitely considered by tradition to be penultimate; it was the Buddha's next-to-last teaching before the Nirvana Sutra. However, the Tiantai and Nichiren schools also believe that the teachings it contains are "ultimate" in a different sense; they are the highest and most true. The confusion probably arises from multiple editors rewriting the same sentence. I suppose it should be reworded. - Nat Krause 08:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree - the context of the usage is confusing, aggravated by the fact that penultimate is very frequently abused. -- wackyvorlon

My bad. The intent (as far as my authorship/editing is concerned) is indeed ultimate—e.g., highest, supreme, etc. I'll go in and fix it. Thanks for pointing out the error. Jim_Lockhart 09:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit of 6 June 2004[edit]

In light of the addition made by User:Enumclaw, I decided to try to sort this article out a bit more. I have removed the following portions:

Renge is the lotus flower; because the lotus blooms and seeds at the same time, the idea is that it represents the law of cause and effect,...

I've incorporated this explanation elsewhere, in the general explanation of what renge means, because the interpretation is not exclusive to Soka Gakkai (or even Nichiren Shoshu).

Thus while adherants are literally chanting their devotion/adoration to the Lotus Sutra, in another mindset they are chanting to remind themselves that what they believe is the law of cause and effect, i.e. karma, that Shakyamuni Buddha and Nichiren taught.

This is a tough call because it. The "chanting their devotion [to] the Lotus Sutra" part is pretty much universal, though some schools might object to the "adoration" part. The part reading "in another mindset they are chanting to remind themselves that what they believe" is most likely exclusive to Soka Gakkai, since traditionalists would object to this interpretation on the grounds that they are not trying to "remind" themselves of anything, but rather invoke the power of Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo to lead them to enlightenment. In any case, I feel that interpretations exclusive to any given school should be explained in detail in the article on that school, with only passing reference in articles intended to be more general. I'd also like to note that an external link at the bottom of the page already points to an explanation of the phrase from Soka Gakkai's viewpoint.

Thoughts? Jim_Lockhart 08:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree, I'm an SGI member. To "remind" myself while chanting is a very strange concept in any way or shape. This issue is not unique to Soka Gakkai, but rather - it is more likely that this sect places more emphasis on study than others? Allow me to show where they get it: Directly from the Lotus Sutra, the 10 factors of the Hoben (2nd) chapter. Which lists from 6-9 as cause and effect, and #10 revealing what is discussed here: "And their [the other 9 factors, including internal cause ('nyo ze in'), external cause ('nyo ze en'), internal effect ('nyo ze ka') and external effect ('nyo ze ho')] consistency from beginning to end". The "consistency" here means in a single life moment-the "simultaneous" part. Again, that is the nature of the Lotus Blossom to arguably the largest degree in all of Buddhism (simultaneity of cause and effect = karma), so to suggest it's belief is limited to soka gakkai is strange to me. Further: Tendai sects do not use this daimoku, so why would they be relevant. There are dozens of Nichiren sects to consider on this issue-Tendai sects are not among them.

Back to the "reminder" issue. No, I cannot speak for other sects but concentration on the Gohonzon is the focus, the mind is preferably quiet, not reminding. When chanting, I am seeking to get lost in it, to achieve nearly a trance. I cannot "think" my life condition to change, but I can "chant" it to :) Again, I would suspect the issue here is one of deeper study. Soka Gakkai has historically been very fierce about it: Encouraging members to study, take tests, learn the basic fundamentals of Nichiren's teachings, which of course are based more than anything on the Lotus Sutra itself, and the "Maka Shikan" written by T'ien T'ai. The idea of reminding the self is way off base for Soka Gakkai. The literal concept involved here would be "Kyochi Myogo", which means "Fusion of Subjective Wisdom with Objective Reality". Fusion with the Gohonzon, the awakening of the Buddha nature. In other words, the attempt to awaken the 9th consciousness-which is way beyond thought. The "reminder" claim indicates 6th and 7th consciousnesses, so it actually contradicts a variety of concepts in this Buddhism, it is by all rights false. It is stated as it is precisely what Renge is. "Renge" however, is the (portion of the) mantra, not "Don't forget, it means cause and effect and whatnot". This is because it is NOT just limited to "cause and effect". It has many other meanings as well-all of which can ONLY be captured by "renge", rather than just its aspects. For example, that renge (lotus blossom) also grows from mud, indicating the principle of the "mutuality of the 10 worlds", that is: Buddhahood can be found in Hell. and so on. TO simplify any of it to a quick assumption is a guaranteed mistake. To suggest Soka Gakkai members are doing this "reminding" has a hint of bias to it, stripping them of it being a "meditative practice" which is precisely what it is.

Thoughts? :)Bob the Lunatic (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done - I don't know what other SGI members would say but I certainly don't chant to remind myself of the mystic law: I'd rather say I chant to devote my life to it, or you could say "internalise" it. -- 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... good call. The new version is pretty clean.


The current text seems to claim that only Nichiren schools practice the Daimoku. I would assume Tendai/Tiantai to have that practice as well. Didn't Nichiren himself learn it there? Luis Dantas

I've never heard that; someone familiar with Tendai practices will have to clarify. Nichiren himself said that Tendai and Dengyo, at least, knew of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo but never "revealed" it because the "time wasn't ripe" (as he put it--this has to do with the concept in the Lotus schools of time periods following Sakyamuni's passing), and the most widely spread notion is that Nichiren first propounded the phrase. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 7 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

Nichiren said in one of His Gosho that Tiantai personally chanted the daimoku, but Tiantai never revealed it to others. Nichiren revealed it as the practice for Mappo, as it was His role as Bodhisattva Superior Practices. [If we assume Nichiren was Bodhisattva Jogyo]. Steve (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no gosho that says that. Nichiren is very clear on this issue. This is more likely what he says (one Gosho REFERENCE would be "On the Real Aspect of the Gohonzon"), that Tien Tai and Dengyo far surpassed him in knowledge and perhaps intelligence. But what he excels at is FAITH. There is no question, Nichiren in 1253 is the first person to chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" by any account I know of. If this is disputed, even here-it should allude to a reference better than "some gosho". Yes as Jim says, this is why Nichiren was the "True Buddha" by some accounts (Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Shoshu) or at the very least by others (Nichiren Shu, and others from the other 4 priests) the reincarnation of "Bodhisattva Jogyo" and the first one to fulfill the prophecy of the Lotus Sutra. The whole claim to fame that Nichiren makes is that he is the "First to reveal the SEED of enlightenment: Nam Myoho Renge Kyo".

What tien tai did here: He organized ALL the sutras by depth and time period, and proved that the Lotus Sutra was the Highest teaching. So you could certainly credit Tien Tai with pushing "Myoho Renge Kyo" to the top of the heap with valid basis. But you cannot in any way give Tien Tai credit for "NAM Myoho Renge Kyo" and to claim that Nichiren said so is a bit ridiculous considering mountains of evidence (all similar to what I added here) to the contrary: Nichiren was the first to say it, and there is no claim of a dispute anywhere I've seen, this page is the first mention of it. If Steve has a gosho that says otherwise, I am at least curious to a reference (there are about 800 of them, could we narrow it down?) and also: Please tell me what was special about Nichiren, and what does "Superior" of "superior practices" allude to if not exactly what it says: "Superior practices" .... so if tien tai already said it, what superior practice did Nichiren/Jogyo come up with? (Do you see it even fails the test of basic logic?Bob the Lunatic (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Translations: literal and exegetical[edit]

The article stated that nam myoho renge kyo is translated as "Devotion to the Mystic Law of cause and effect that exists throughout all the sounds and vibrations of the universe", but this really overstates and confuses the matter. Although one can't realistically expect always to find a word-for-word translation, this version is more of an exegesis than a translation. There's nothing wrong with this, but it shouldn't be presented simply as "the translation" of these words. A more literal translation should be given although, of course, it's also useful to retain this longer interpretive translation that can unpack some of the meaning in the more literal version.

To this end, I thought of giving "Hail to Dharma the Lotus Sutra" as the literal translation, and like this version as it comes close to a word-for-word rendering. . The namu part, derived from Sanskrit namas works really more like an honorific than a noun. I'd thought of "hail", "greetings", "blessed" or "dear" but didn't want to stray to far from the exegetical translation. I'd appreciate responses from others on what we could use here that would be more accurate than "devotion".

The problem here with "Dharma" is that although relatively widely known in English, it is likely to be more confusing than clarifying. Other possible choices here would be "religion", "regulation", or "law"; keeping "mystic law" seemed reasonable. The addition of "of cause and effect" while not precisely false certainly does much more than simply translate the phrase.

The exegetical translation was least satisfactory, as a literal translation, for the renge kyo part. Here it explained rather than translated. The phrase "that exists throughout all the sounds and vibrations of the universe", while not especially unclear on its own terms, really adds a great deal rather than simply trying to turn the words into English. It seems better to be direct and succinct. I'd wanted to give Lotus Sutra but the problems with using "sutra" are similar to those with "dharma": both are loandwords in English that won't be clear to many readers not already familiar with Buddhism or Hinduism. "Lotus Scripture" makes it clear that there is a reference to a religious book with the name of "Lotus". Interlingua 13:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

literally translated as Devotion to the Law of the Lotus Scripture an exegetical translated as

There's at least one other prominent pop culture appearance of the chant: In the film The Last Detail (1973, directed by Hal Ashby), two grizzled US Navy noncoms (played by Jack Nicholson and the late Otis Young) are assigned to accompany a scared young seaman convict (Randy Quaid) to the Portsmouth Naval Prison in Portsmouth, NH. Taking pity on him, they show him some good times in all the major cities of the Eastern Seaboard. They also attend a Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist meeting, where the young sailor, facing 8 years in the brig, learns that by chanting, he can get anything he wants. In later scenes of the movie, we see Quaid (who is, of course, the older brother of Dennis Quaid, cited in the same section of the same article on Daimoku) invoking the chant.Maccb (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The kanji (Chinese Characters) for "nam myoho renge kyo" may be wrong. In the text of the article it's listed as "南無妙法蓮華經" but the actual kanji may be "南無妙法蓮華経" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

DJ MYSTIC LAW: Considering that Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is an invention of Nichiren Daishonin, which is a combination of NAM and "MYOHORENGEKYO" It deems quoting directly from the translations of the Ongi Kuden and his Writings when giving a definition of the meaning of the term. Moreover, the definition that Nichiren Daishonin packs into it is quite deep, profound and possibly unsettling to some. However, it deems mentioning that any Definition that goes in an Encyclopedia should quote from the source. Which I have done, I have taken pages 3-4 of the Ongi Kuden as well as Gosho Number One (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin Pages 3-4). Both of which together help to fully elucidate the meaning of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo. I know that if I created something out of an implicit meaning of a text, attached deep meaning to it, I would love it to be correctly transmitted by quoting me directly. And I am sure that for a purely informational purpose it is quite alright here. " - 532PM - 6 NOVEMBER 2011 Djmysticlaw (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō is a language nonsense in Japanese. It should be transcribed, chanted (or recited) Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō accordingly to kanji 南無妙法蓮華經 (nan-mu-myō-hō-ren-ge-kyō).--Seibun (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a point on "renge". Cause and Effect would certainly be accurate in the context of this page. No, it is not the literal meaning. The literal meaning should be "Lotus Blossom". However, the Lotus is an important symbol for primarily "cause and effect". It is said that it is the only flower that blossoms and seeds at the same time. Thus, it is chosen to represent karma, or the "simultaneity of cause and effect". I have studied this Buddhism for 20 years, if someone ignorant asked me for the best literal translation-but, keeping in mind the context of what it is (the Title of the Lotus Sutra, and from the perspective of Nichiren Sects, the heart of the Lotus Sutra also), I would answer: "I devote myself to the Mystic Law of Cause and Effect through Sound." Because Nam IS included on the title page, one is now limited ONLY to Nichiren Sects as Nam is what Nichiren added to make this a "Nichiren only" page if you will. Thus, to ignore the meaning of the phrase, from the Nichiren perspective (and choose rough, literal translations instead), seems like a mistake as these are not a few random words thrown together but rather a phrase of 7 syllables that have a distinct meaning, far apart perhaps from a cold, scholastic perspective on them in a language only context. Bob the Lunatic (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Also on the "nam" comment most recent: Of course it is "nonsense" in Japanese, for it is sanskrit. However, what should be noted here is that it is intentionally in two languages (sanskrit and japanese, to show the law/daimoku is universal. Nam is a common beginning to many Japanese chants/mantras though. For example, in Nembutsu, or Jodo (pure land) sects, they would use the mantra "Nam-Amidabutsu" (or, "I devote myself to the Buddha Amida". Regardless, this page isn't on "Nam", it's on "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" and universality is why Nichiren claims he uses a 2nd language in the most important phrase in the history of Buddhism, from his, and his adherents' perspective. Again, perhaps something to note upon referencing (sorry, too lazy to do the work, even though I've 250 books on this topic). And no, "Nam" and "Namu" are interchangeable from at least some Nichiren sects' perspective. Yes, I am sure Japanese would strictly say "Na-Mu" as there is no such sound "m" in Japanese but rather, only "ma, mi, mu, me, and mo. It is namu, but for the page, and for the purposes intended, "Nam" is likely more correct at least by majority (Nichiren believer) accounts. And rather, "Namu" is considered a "prolonged daimoku" only. What you may be missing is that it is likely a rhythm issue. Again, note that other Japanese sects also use "Nam" not "Namu". The latter perhaps is a bit of a "hiccup" while chanting a mantra, just a theory, based on experience. Bob the Lunatic (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


This article reads as if somebody dropped in references to some Nichren organization called SGI. I don't know much about Nichiren but I would suspect that SGI is not the only Organization that carries on this Buddhist tradition. If so, what are these references doing in this article and why are they not even explained. I know too little about this topic to be comfortable with editing the article but it feels to me as if it would be better to drop these references and the link to (which is not even formatted properly) at the end of the article. It feels like somebody with little wikipedia experience wanted to just drop the name of their organization without caring about topical relevance or the ability of readers to even understand these references. (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it interesting that the Nichiren Buddhism article refers to Soka Gakkai International as a "lay organization" but in order to get any information on them I had to then go to a separate article which details the organization. It doesn't appear to indicate anywhere that SGI has any kind of monopoly on the use of the Daimoku; in fact, they seem purely "noteworthy" because some famous Buddhists (and by this I mean famous in the western world) belong to them. This seems more like some (well-intentioned?) advertising to me. Atypicaloracle (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would weigh in here. Perhaps the rules weren't followed nor objective, unbiased, etc. But there is no question that Soka Gakkai should be mentioned, including at least a paragraph. It would be like saying "Luther should not be mentioned in the article on Protestant Christianity". All Nichiren sects were very small until Soka Gakkai hit the scene after WWII. They grew from zero to over ten million in about 2 decades I believe. Soka Gakkai brought Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the world by any rational account. They do not have a monopoly, but there is no question they are the ones that put Nichiren Buddhism on the map, and are certainly notable and to not mention it on this page indicates bias against them.

Also, the majority by far of Nichiren Buddhism would be "Soka Gakkai". If you combine all other Nichiren sects, they would account for less than 10%-of the total, with remainder being, Soka Gakkai. I won't make additional arguments, of which there are plenty, but again-you perhaps are getting blinded by proselytizing and missing the valid aspect of its mention as far as wiki's concerns. If a person looked this page up to learn about it-guess what resources are available? Soka Gakkai. All other sects are very small, hard to find outside Japan. So to withhold Soka Gakkai on this page is to withhold the most helpful place to find information on where to chant, where to learn, where to acquire books, etc. Anyway, the reaction is understandable, but unfounded and incorrect here-no question, it should have a mention and a paragraph, but perhaps not written by a Gakkai member.. So to quickly dismiss Soka Gakkai because they brag about Tina Turner or Herbie Hancock (assumed based on your statement) is quite silly. This is also a bit out of date for the organization culturally. I would argue they pushed such things back in the 70s & 80s for 2 reasons: 1/ To continue to show its respect for American culture, and its acclimation as proof, and perhaps convinced that TV people were important due to recognition. 2/ It really values music, and musical talent. Regardless, the argument made that 'it was mentioned because of a few irrelevant westerner famous folk, is no basis, etc. etc.' is beyond ridiculous. It indicates the wiki author glanced (pamphlet style) at the web page or something. Upon closer (60 second) inspection-they would quickly see that Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu would be the first sects to mention in regard to the page title. There are dozens of others, but these 2 are the most notable, and really no question of the 2, Soka Gakkai is the most so, as Nichiren Shoshu is only well known (globally) due to Soka Gakkai. Research it a little more, you'll see you through out the baby with the bathwater on this issue.Bob the Lunatic (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

DJ MYSTIC LAW WROTE: Please understand that the Soka Gakkai International is the leading force of Kosen-Rufu ( wide proclamation and propagation of the teachings of Nichiren Daishoin). Also, please make sure you understand that contributions from millions of Soka Gakkai members went into the task of translating and compiling the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Whether you think the SGI is too preachy, or forceful, in their approach of disseminating the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin is only an attack on their character, and has to relevancy on the actual writings validity. Please acknowledge the Soka Gakkai's most basic function in this regard. There is a profound reason why there is no other translations of the teachings widely available.(Also, if you know of other translations of the Gosho Zenshu[Collected Writings of Nichiren Daishonin] please let me know I would love to check them out. - 525PM 6 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmysticlaw (talkcontribs) Djmysticlaw (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DJ MYSTIC LAW WROTE: In regards to this statement "This article reads as if somebody dropped in references to some Nichren organization called SGI" Please remember Soka Gakkai And Soka Gakkai International own the translations of the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, and the members contributed to them being translated to english. If I wrote a book, my name would be promoted along with it. And since the Soka Gakkai did translate the teachings, compile them and spread them around the world. The are that organization that will be advertised along with any reference to Nichiren's Writings. I hope that is ok with you, since it appears that is the way things are rolling... Djmysticlaw (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed first person account[edit]

I removed a first person account that wasn't written in an encyclopedic style. It should probably be rewritten if it's to go back in, but I don't think it really added to the article much. Airosche (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph and explanations[edit]

This needs to show both pronunciations because not all schools of Nichiren Buddhism say Namu, which is mainly just used by Nichiren Shu, whereas Nichiren Shoshu and SGI use Nam, and it this needs to reflect this. And it isn't a polite form "O-daimoku" it's a distinct difference between the different schools, Nichiren Shu say O-daimoku, whereas Nichiren Shoshu and SGI use Daimoku. Also 経 is the modern Japanese and is more common, but in all liturgy the chinese 經 is used instead, on the Gohonzon also the older Chinese 經 is used, and so for all intents and purposes it should be 經. Mollari08 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, SGI & Nichiren Shoshu also use "Namu". "Nam" is just truncated, but it still is "Namu". The 2 mentioned sects here do not use it while chanting, but both used it for prolonged diamoku (slow chanting 3 times prior to prayers) at the end of reading the liturgy/sutra. SGI quit using it during its various revisions of their liturgy/sutra book after the split with Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. The liturgy primarily uses chinese for the sake of rhythm, but for ease of use (assumed) the Japanese (by this I mean, in addition to kanji characters) above the Chinese is always Hiragana to my knowledge.Bob the Lunatic (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Actually," Bob, SGI and Nichiren Shoshu acknowledge that the word is spelled as "namu." Japanese has no "M" character, but rather a "mu" character. While Nichiren Shu may pronounce the "mu" fully, SGI members, at least, do not. Not even in daimoku sansho (Daimoku three times at the end of liturgy) have I ever known an SGI member to say "Namu myoho." Seeing as SGI originates with and is very similar to Nichiren Shoshu, I imagine that the Shoshu members do not use the pronunciation of "shoshu." So, yes, "Namu" is still acknowledged as the proper spelling as far as Japanese to English, "Nam" is the correct pronunciation to acknowledge. - Ricci (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes & Misinterpretations[edit]

This article is based on SGI propaganda pamphlets, with many language mistakes and misinterpretations (eg. "o" in invocation o-daimoku is a honorific prefix, as used with many words in Japanese) broadly present in "American-Japanese". I would suggest using serious Japanese dictionaries and handbooks. --Seibun (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


I propose to merge the article with an article named Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo Redirect Daimoku, Odaimoku, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo and Namu Myoho Renke Kyo to the above mentioned title. Benefit: End to endless debates.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


This section is in a mess at this point--Catflap08 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits march 30th 2014[edit]

Keeping WP:PROMOTION in mind it is best to keep the article clear from one-sided promotion of certain schools. The category and wiki link to Nichiren Buddhism already do exist. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Catflap08, don't remove the verifiable information. -- (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Would be very proper to add verifiable information about other schools, practicing O-Daimoku. -- (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
For that other articles on all major Nichiren Schools exist already. Thats extaly why the article is the way it is - there is room for interpretation within the schools respective articles.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If your point of view is such, you may add to this article some main features of support the mantra for each school and make links to existing articles, where supporting described more fully, as done for Nipponzan-Myōhōji. -- (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what the purpose is of this citation. It doesn't seem to be used or referenced in the article text itself...? Please clarify the situation before adding this again. Best regards. Tengu800 16:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • @ The fact that this article is general in nature is that it does not become the battle ground for various Nichiren Schools. Articles on ALL major Nichiren Schools do exist and that’s the place where to include on how NMRK is being interpreted and practised. Links also exist. Funny enough all Nichiren Schools claim peace and do their best to kick each others heads in. Its been a long way to get this article to general consensus.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If exist verifiable information about the subject of article in the practice of any school, it should be mentioned in the article. -- (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop to change my edits to the talk page. The article is about the subject NOT about a Buddhist school. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Subject of the article has generated by one Buddhist, but different Buddhist schools are not equally supported it. The article will not be complete, if not describe how each school support the subject. Also must be described relations to the mantra outside Buddhism. In this regard, is mentioned the name of Mahatma Gandhi. -- (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe some section could be made for sectarian interpretations. The citation given previously, though, seems very excessive. An article for a subject like this should clearly separate between scholarly and historical views, and sectarian religious viewpoints. It can include both, though, as long as the material is properly qualified and put in context. Tengu800 04:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
All removed materials were directly related to the subject of the article and have been added without breaking the rules. Such removal is violation of the rule WP:NOTCENSORED: articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. The only user desirous with edit war stubbornness the deleting was satisfied by removing restored valuable verifiable materials, which made ​​another one who contrary to common sense violated main principle WP by restriction of freedom of edits in article. -- (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC), this article was protected by an administrator because of disruption by IP editors. You may ask for peer editing help at the Teahouse. You can get advice from an independent, experienced editor there, if you believe the WP:NOTCENSORED policy was violated. JimRenge (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What the disruption by IP editors means? -- (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedias openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, for promotion or giving undue weight to a minority. JimRenge (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't write nonsense. Just prove that unfounded restriction of editing freedom the article Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō [1] isn't administrative tyranny. -- (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The one who writes nonsense here is you. Editing in Wikipedia follows some rules and guidelines.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor -- (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So? This was a comment on the content contributed. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDYOU -- (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Inserting a section for sectarian interpretations would be like opening the Pandora ’s Box. The sects know themselves best what they practise (at least one would hope that) and the articles already exist. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

m:Wiki is not paper: Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite. As Wikipedia grows, so will computing power, storage capacity, and bandwidth. While there is a practical limit to all these at any given time, Wikipedia is not likely ever to outgrow them. -- (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a means for self-promotion WP:NOTADVERTISING--Catflap08 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED: articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. -- (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Rev. Terasawa-Sensei with Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō on his drum</ref> and in his famous hat with leader Inter Religious Federation World Peace Dr. Frank Kaufmann. Jerusalem, 2003.

Why are the recent additions to this article not considered to be constructive in an encyclopedia?

  • addition of a picture: File:2003-12-22 Terasava & Kaufmann.jpg This picture shows Terasawa-Sensei, leader of the Ukranian section of Nipponzan Myohoji together with Frank Kaufmann, representing the Unification Church. This picture adds no valuable info about the topic. It might have been added to introduce the reader to the most venerable reverend Terasawa-Sensei and may be useful in the corresponding lemma. It appears to be promotion in the context of this article.
Write Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo on the membrane of prayer drum and chant Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo with its punches is a unique practice of the Buddhism branch through which the value of Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo became close to Mahatma Gandhi, for example [2]. Picture of the prayer drum in hands not part with it monk peacemaker, who known around the world, is essential for the encyclopedic article on the mandala, which a significant and not necessarily Buddhist part of humanity, supporting Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo, chant exactly as advises Nipponzan Myohoji. It's absurdly to name advertising a mention this well-known and verifiable fact in the article on Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo. -- (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • addition of a video: This video shows a ceremony of the Ukranian section of Nipponzan Myohoji. I learned nothing about Nam Myoho Rengekyo when I saw the video. It appears to be promotion for the Ukranian section of Nipponzan Myohoji.
April 28, 2003, Circle of Peace on All Religions Mount: Roman Turchin initiated and with Nikolay Tarasenko organized celebrating the 750th anniversary of Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo, which brought together a large number of guests.
If you don't read the explanation under the video, read here that in one point of Earth the celebration of 750 anniversary of Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo has gathered many people of different faiths including atheists. This fact is fixed on the video from which you not willing to extract understanding that Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo is known and is valuable not only for just a few individual branches of one Buddhism direction. -- (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • addition of a picture of a gohonzon: This may be helpful, it shows the mantra in the center. I will readd this picture because the gohonzon is significant in all sects of Nichiren buddhism and it should be clear that the revisions were not made to censor this image
You have removed in vain the picture of Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo stone Such stones are exist and meet not only in Japan but also in Britain, India, and even in Ukraine. The reader has a right to know how they may look and you can't take away from him that right. -- (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • addition of a picture with an explanation of the gohonzon in Chinese/Japanese: This picture gives no added value to the article - it might be useful in the gohonzon article (if the explanation would be in English).
  • How this and previous point is associated with advertising Nipponzan Myohoji? -- (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This picture is very useful. Gohonzon calligraphy is presented on the explanatory picture by printed characters, which are described in the article text. For a reader is more comfortable to compare the printed symbols in article text and on explanatory picture for easier recognizing them in calligraphy. Please, restore explanatory picture in article. -- (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The Chinese characters are already present in the main body of the text. This article is about Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo, there exists already a separate article about the gohonzon where a more detailed explanation (in English) might be fitting. JimRenge (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Is written much on gohonzon. The reader of this article should quickly be sure that Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo is really written in its center. -- (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The IPs are from the Ukraine (Kiev and surrounding region) and may possibly be adherents or members of Nipponzan Myohoji. Please stop adding promotional content and note that the removal of promotion or advertisement is not censoring. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@ the IP-user(s) normally one answers to someone’s post directly underneath the end of the thread - not in the middle of someone else’s post. Might be a good idea to have a wee wander and look at other talk pages. Alternatively you can quote the post one wishes to reply to. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You should not wage edit war for the sake of removing relevant, valuable and verifiable information in Namu-Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo article. Then we would not have abnormal discussions. -- (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Before editing its always good to learn what Wikipedia IS and what it is NOT WP:NOTADVERTISING--Catflap08 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED: articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. -- (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

WP:NOTCENSORED Although Wikipedia is generally not censored, its articles may be removed from public view if they meet certain criteria for deletion, such as lack of significance or lack of notability. Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bash your heads[edit]

To whom it might concern in all those anonymous IP-edits. This mantra is practised by more schools than articles on which even exist within Wikipedia. What is so difficult into accepting that? Links exist within this article to all major schools of Nichiren Buddhism which in turn leads to all lemmas of major schools of thought that are represented within Wikipedia. In the respective article one can can ponder on to one's hearts content what NMRK is all about. It just seems to me, being a private opinion, that those who are adherents of organisations that claim to be peace loving, walks and UN engagement whatsoever, seem to be the most fierce to proclaim superiority. This again being a private opinion, Nichiren Buddhist seem to be that last to bring about a (relgious) peace . You guys are not even able to bring about some peace amongst yourselves so how dare you being of any use to human kind? Being an editor on the subject here for quite a while this is private opinion. So go on bash your heads in. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection II[edit]

Due to issues concerning WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:LINKFARM. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV I asked yet again for a page protection.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge KyōNamu Myōhō Renge Kyō – Almost no one in Japan or elsewhere pronounces or spells this phrase as "Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō" (なんみょうほうれんげきょう). The article currently fails to specify that of these two "variants" one is overwhelmingly more common and the other is almost unattested.[3][4] Mentioning the extremely obscure variant in the article text is a good thing, and perhaps if it was less obscure (relatively speaking) in English then an argument could be made for making it the title rather than the correct Japanese spelling. But putting the correct spelling in parentheses like the title currently does is just plain weird. (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Kusunose: I fixed what I assume to have been a a misprint in your comment. Going by SGI's website, that claim appears to be correct. But I get the impression that even the majority of Japanese people who join SG aren't aware of their sect's "official" pronunciation, because Namu is the standard Japanese pronunciation that appears in dictionaries. (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


This article is neither about Soka Gakkai‘s teachings nor about the ones of Nipponzan-Myōhōji. This Mantra has been long established before any Nichiren Sects, cult, organisations and so forth even existed. So what they make out of it should be covered in the respective article. No problems whatsoever to included references that underline the content rather than: WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS. Please also note that this is a version that CONSENSUS was already reached on.. Links to Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism which will consequently lead to individual interpretations have already been included, so don’t think readers are completely thick not being able to browse their way through the subject. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to have jumped the gun here. I made an edit that was in fact uncontroversial (99.99% of Wikipedia editors would agree with me) but that I could easily imagine some irrational users (not Catflap08) disagreeing with and immediately reverting. Then an IP shows up and makes an edit whose edit summary openly claims to be a revert (even though that doesn't strictly speaking seem to be correct). I therefore naturally assumed that, since the edit claimed to be a revert of my edit, that that was in fact what it was, and so I re-reverted. But it turns out the IP and I actually appear to agree to a certain extent on the substance. The IP is also not in a range I recognize, and so I might have been biased into thinking it was a Russian user to whom "of course we should be including extensive quotes from Russian sources -- doesn't everyone here speak Russian?" is a natural way of thinking. But on examination it turns out the IP geolocates to Germany, where Catflap's user page says he hails from.
User:Catflap08, can we just clarify: the IP that originally made the edit that so confused me by claiming to be a revert of my edit was in fact you, right? If it was, then I guess you jumped the gun on the Miyazawa Kenji article and I jumped the gun here, so then we can "call it even"?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see so you think editing in Wikipedia is about getting „even“? Interesting concept that is.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

                               Correct Teachings from Nichiren Daishonin
 The Gohonzon of Nichiren Shoshu says in the middle Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo.  But when we chant Daimoku to the Gohonzon we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.  Nam Myoho Renge Kyo means I devote myself to the Mystic Law of the Lotus Sutra.  Also, some of the Nichiren Sects believe that Shakuson (Shakyamuni Buddha) is the true buddha such as the Nichiren Shu sect.  Shakyamuni's teachings are going to help the people until a certain period of time which and that happened a very long time ago.  Also in Nenbutsu they chant Namu Amida Butsu meaning I devote myself to Amida Buddha which is an incorrect teaching.  Amida Buddha is not the true buddha, Nenbutsu have not yet learned the true teavhings.  The Nichiren Shu sect was formed when 5 of the 6 disciples of the Daishonin did not use the correct teachings of the True Buddha.  Disciples: Nissho, Nichiro, and Niko are the founders of Nichiren Shu.  They have no power when they chant because their Gohonzon is written by any priest and they do not recite gongyo correctly.  The Gohonzon must be inscribed by the High Priest of Nichiren Shoshu.  Also Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo is the main teaching of Nichiren Daishonin but when doing daimoku you must chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.  In Nichiren Shoshu we have the Object of Worship the Dai-Gohonzon at the head temple Taiseki-ji at the foot of Mt. Fuji in Japan.  None other Nichiren Sect believes that the Dai Gohonzon has any meaning at all which is not right.  Also the fake buddhism  Soka Gakkai International practices incorrectly.  They don't pray right.  They pray to a fake gohonzon inscribed by their oblivious president Daisaku Ikeda.  Soka Gakkai International (SGI) was once part of Nichiren Shoshu until 1991 when 67th High Priest Nikken Shonin expelled them from the Religion.  The former shoshu members that belong to SGI give their gohonzon to the SGI leaders and they burn them!  SGI doesn't chant right either.  They rubbed their juzu beads together while chanting which is very wrong.  My point is most Nichiren Sects except the Shoshu sect practice and chant wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 
@ user You have every right to consider things right or wrong, but what you consider right or wrong in terms of the comment you have made about the article’s content is irrelevant. This is your personal opinion and Wikipedia is not a means to propagate nor to vilify any religious beliefs. The mantra is practised by various Buddhist sects. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Gohonzon piture[edit]

In the article is a picture of the Gohonzon. For some Nichiren sects the is not of great significance, but I know for sure that for members of Nichiren Soshu and millions of Soka Gakkai members worldwide making a picture of this object of devotion (and as such publishing one) is profoundly offensive to human nature. I don't have the time to check Wikipedia's policy's about this now, but I strongly urge to consider removing and destroying this picture. --FaZ72 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times across numerous articles. Here is one example. Helpsome (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)