The danger of substituting an organization for your own personal identity

What we sometimes see is that an SGI member comes onto the board and asks some general question about our experiences in the SGI or what we think about this or that general concept or why we say such mean things when their own experience with SGI has been nothing but butterflies and fluffy bunnies. No matter what information we provide, from our own personal accounts to statistical analysis to SGI's own published sources, the response we get from the SGI member very quickly assumes a certain shape and tone:

"Nuh UH!!"

No matter what we say, we're shut down, even attacked! There is a reason this happens - it's because the SGI member has integrated SGI into his/her own identity and, thus, anything we say is taken as a personal attack to be vigorously defended against.

While we were members, we all heard "I am the SGI." We likely said it ourselves, more than once! I know I did.

SGI members proudly state, "I am the SGI," despite the fact that members have no voting rights, no control over the SGI's policies or finances, no grievance procedure for resolving disputes, etc. "I am the SGI" means that SGI members have assumed total personal responsibility for an organization in which they have zero control. So when I criticize the SGI, I know that many SGI members will feel that I am attacking them personally and they will respond with personal attacks on me.

This automatic defensive attack response comes when someone has adopted the cult as his/her identity. This is dangerous for many reasons, as explained in Paul Graham's article "Keep Your Identity Small":

I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.

I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.

Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities.

When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical. The threshold for participating goes down to zero...

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people.

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

The mechanism by which these identity definitions make you dumber is antiprocess. That link goes straight to the Conclusion, but you can get to the other pages via the left sidebar menu at that site.

The key is that the cult has not only tapped into the individual member's fears and desires, but has promised a way to protect the member while giving him or her access to all those desires. Thus, the cult is serving as an important patron whose favor must be curried at every moment or risk having those highly sought benevolences withdrawn - just like a God. Ikeda himself said that the Soka Gakkai is a monotheism just like Christianity, after all!

The Soka Gakkai/SGI also promotes the idea that the Gohonzon is magically watching you every moment via the Universe (capital "U") that you can't escape.

The Dai-Gohonzon is watching everything I do. - Ikeda as Shinichi Yamamoto, in The Human Revolution IV.

The Gohonzon in your life already knows your worries and desires. SGI cultie

Gohonzon knows exactly what’s going on in your heart and mind and if you chant the Universe will respond and support you in any struggle or challenge you go through. Another SGI cultie

It sees you when you're sleeping...it knows when you're awake...

Nichiren promoted this view as well:

When we have this mandala with us, it is a rule that all the Buddhas and gods will gather round and watch over us, protecting us like a shadow day and night, just as warriors guard their ruler, as parents love their children, as fish rely on water, as trees and grasses crave rain, and as birds depend on trees. You must trust in it with all your heart. Gosho

Or else O_O

As always, it's a double-edged sword.

"I am the SGI" vs "I am a Buddha!" Which motto is faithful to Buddhism? Do you care? If not, WHY not??