Thanks Krish -

The stuff I sent you is best contained within direct contacts of mine. Suzy and Lulu can read all of it if they want. It's passed time I was chatting with them about it.

I seem to be having a dialogue principally with a woman called Hiromi who practices on the Temple side. She arranges meetings with leaders who can speak English and argue the Temple's case. I also have dialogue set up with a senior guy at Shinanomachi. Mostly the Temple guys are kind of amazed that someone from the SGI will hear them out, so it makes me wonder whether the local members have made much effort at all at open-minded dialogue. Sometimes their arguments centre on Ikeda, sometimes on the authority the gosho lends the priesthood, and sometimes the issue about SGI stealing gohonzons or destroying them. They're usually not drooling at the mouth and chanting Nikken's name. This kind of thing could whip up a huge storm on each side without achieving anything. I just let them express themselves, nod, smile and say that the hard evidence would be interesting to see and we continue to talk. One gets the feeling that the split caused great pain for them and they didn't make their choices lightly. When I'm finished, I put my questions and perspectives to them and thank them for their time. I've never had a word of disrespect from them. They always heard me out, gave reasonable answers, and tended to take my perspective seriously. I also had a few emails with Vida Adamoli on the SGI side and a few with Annette whitelaw on the Temple side on the history, the theory and the weight of evidence in the split. These dialogues tended to defend their own position, (in each case, very reasonably and self-sufficiently).

It's mostly me and Hiromi who have creative discussion on our perspectives which will dignify each side's position and establish common ground. We can talk very openly about the flaws in our own organisations and speculate as to whether this is a real division or just an ego war between the senior bods. At first we were trying to sell our side to each other, but now I think we're closer to talking about what you and I were talking about, which is - politics aside - how do we nurture enlightenment, how do we build trust and how do we create unity and value in the face of all this?

I don't really want to circulate the facts I've sent you, because as intriguing as they are, they're just hearsay from each side. I can feel this huge energy from many of the members on both sides to fire facts at each other. When you hear both sides of the argument, you quickly learn that most of these facts are a lot less demonstrable than they would like to imagine. They generally aim to damage the opposing side's credibility right up. "Great! I torpedoed the fucker! Now everyone will know he's a lying shit!.. Now let's get back to world peace..."

The idea that you could make someone honest by rewarding their honesty with openness, or that you could educate them by helping them listen to themselves, or that you could create a dialogue which sought a solution rathr than a crushing vistory... Well, I guess that's just my own maddness coming out. I'm very happy to discuss ideas about that with anybody, but I think really I'll get pelted with hundreds of emails ranking "The case against the Temple" (as if this could alter anything), and asking me to succumb to reason (or face their contempt). As if being on the right side could make a bad man good, or as if aggression in a good cause could dignify that cause rathr than defile it. My preferential judgement won't teach them how to learn compassion and respect for their enemies.

What we need is a philosophy for having dialogue with people who don't really want to trust us. If my research gets passed around as "This is what these bastards are saying about us amongst themselves", I'll have friends on both sides saying "Are you really going to sit there and listen to this shit?" And of course I am. I'm going to sit there and listen until they all start to hear themselves and wonder what you're achieving.

I don't think it matters what people believe. It only matters why they believe it, and what kind of people these beliefs make out of them. When I met the enemy, heard them out, understood their position, sympathised with their experiences and their dilemas... I actually felt like a much better person for it. That's what needs to be getting around.