So maybe it’s my problem.

When Gemini Notebook suggested that “Becoming the Very Manifestation-Body” was what Soka Gakkai’s Human Revolution was all about, I responded that “I simply do not recall ever being instructed that ‘the inner transformation achieved through chanting Namu-Myōhō-Renge-Kyō must express itself in tangible daily behavior—fostering community harmony, promoting peace education, and engaging in grassroots volunteerism.’ ”

I admit my aversion to Daisaku Ikeda and the cult of personality he engendered. That aversion was what sent me looking for an alternative after  26 years of Soka Gakkai meetings and activities. It is very possible that that aversion kept me from learning the teachings of Soka Gakkai. To test this theory, I created a blank notebook in Gemini Notebook and asked it to do some deep research into whether Soka Gakkai taught that inner spiritual practice (chanting daimoku) must translate into daily life behavior, workplace ethics, and social action (“Buddhism is daily life”).

Gemini Notebook’s analysis of the 39 sources it identified has given me a new appreciation for Tsunesaburō Makiguchi’s Value Creation theory, which became the foundation of Nichiren Shoshu’s post war lay practice and the origin of today’s Soka Gakkai.

Given my personal [mis?]understanding of the role of chanting in Soka Gakkai when I was a member – need something, chant; didn’t get what you wantrf? You didn’t chant enough – I was surprised to learn that in Makiguchi’s 1931 treatise “Theory of Value” (Kachiron) “chanting was not treated as magical petitionary prayer, but as a deliberate practice that transforms an individual’s psychological posture, awakens personal agency, and yields verifiable behavioral results and life improvements that members share as personal testimonies (taiken).”

Finding Makiguchi’s teaching admirable, the thought occurred to me: Why did he choose Nichiren Shoshu in 1928 rather than the larger Nichiren Shu? I asked Gemini Notebook and it listed four reasons:

1. Clerical Formalism vs. Empirical “Value Creation” (Sōka)
   Makiguchi rejected the idea of religion as a passive, ritualized pursuit of posthumous salvation or abstract theological dogma. He maintained that a teaching must be tested empirically in daily life by its concrete capacity to produce three core values: Beauty (bi), Benefit (ri), and Good (zen). By the early 20th century, established Nichirenshū had become heavily clericalized, centered on temple rituals, monastic authority, and traditional funerary rites rather than active lay empowerment. Makiguchi found that this passive, temple-centric approach lacked the dynamic methodology needed to transform people’s daily lives or reform social and educational structures.
2. Fundamental Doctrinal Differences
   In traditional Nichirenshū doctrine, Shakyamuni Buddha is viewed as the original, eternal Buddha, while Nichiren is regarded as a reincarnation or representative of Bodhisattva Superior Practice (Jōgyō).
   In contrast, the Nikko/Fuji lineage (affiliated with Taisekiji, where Makiguchi converted via Mitani Sokei’s lay association) holds that Nichiren himself is the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law (mappō). For Makiguchi, this doctrinal distinction emphasized that ordinary human beings possess innate, immediate Buddhahood that can be activated in daily life through chanting daimoku to the Gohonzon, rather than relying on distant monastic intermediaries.
3. Compromise with State Militarism vs. Uncompromising Humanism
   As Japan mobilized for war in the 1930s, established Nichirenshū—like most traditional Japanese religious bodies—compromised with the militarist regime by accommodating State Shinto directives, modifying sacred texts, and agreeing to enshrine Shinto talismans (kamifuda). Makiguchi believed that authentic faith must stand as an uncompromising defense of human dignity and social well-being. When wartime government pressure mounted—and even when priests urged compromise—Makiguchi steadfastly refused to accept Shinto talismans or merge with Nichirenshū. His refusal to subordinate Buddhist humanism to state tyranny led to his arrest in 1943 and his death in prison in 1944.
4. Rejection of Ultranationalist “Imperial Nichirenism”
   In 1916, Makiguchi attended lectures by Chigaku Tanaka, the founder of the ultranationalist group Kokuchūkai (an influential movement with roots in the Nichiren tradition). However, Makiguchi never joined Kokuchūkai because he rejected Tanaka’s attempt to conflate Buddhist doctrine with imperial state ideology (kokutai). Makiguchi sought a humanistic, universal philosophy focused on educational development and individual happiness rather than state-sponsored militarism.

This list was an example where Gemini Notebook’s was misleading. The first and third points – Clerical Formalism and Compromise with State Militarism – also applied to Nichiren Shoshu. On Fundamental Doctrinal Differences, you don’t need Nichiren to be the Original Buddha to believe every individual possesses an innate Buddha nature that can be called forth by chanting Namu-myoho-renge-kyo. As for the popularity of Chigaku Tanaka’s ultranationalist re-interpretation of Nichiren’s teachings, this was never officially adopted as orthodoxy by mainstream Nichiren Shū.

Missing from Gemini Notebook’s response is the most likely reason Makiguchi chose Nichiren Shoshu over Nichiren Shu: The man who introduced him to Buddhism, Mitani Sōkei, a fellow educator, served as the chief administrator of Taisekikō, a lay temple association affiliated directly with Jōzaiji, a Nichiren Shōshū temple located in the Ikebukuro area of Tokyo.

Tomorrow I will publish a Gemini Notebook essay outlining “Tsunesaburō Makiguchi’s Value Theory.”

The following day I will publish a Gemini Notebook essay that examines “Are Makiguchi’s Theories Compatible With Modern Nichiren Shu?”