Talk:Sanbo Kyodan

message: I've added the public apologies of Kubota Ji'un for Yasutani roshi, to make the article more balanced. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies for Yasutani roshi

message: As a final word, I must confess, my friends, that I fail to understand this apology business. Sanbō Kyōdan can apologize on Yasutani's behalf until the cows come home, but that is never going to change one pesky fact: he himself never expressed the slightest regret or remorse for anything he said, nor is there the slightest reason to believe that he changed his views. If someone can show me where and when he did, why then I'll be happy to issue my own official apology. One person or group can not apologize on behalf of another person. This is a corollary of an important moral principle: no person is responsible for the actions of another. Specifically, postwar generations of Japanese are not responsible for any aggression perpetuated by previous generations any more than modern Europeans are responsible for the imperialist aggression carried out by their own ancestors or I am responsible as an American for a war in Vietnam which was waged by other Americans whose policies I detest. Those past generations are the guilty ones, and the only thing modern people of good conscience can do is to disassociate themselves from the ignorance and bestiality of those who are truly guilty. Kubota Rōshi will only do that when he founds his own group and demonstrates that it will be committed to sound moral principles of peace and justice. If he does that, heck, I might even join myself.
--Gunnermanz (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Apology 

message: I agree with Gunnermanz that there are good reasons for a critical stance toward Sanbo Kyodan. But, Yoleroi is right in asserting that the Sanbo Kyodan has been, and is, very influential in the spread of Zen-buddhism in the United States - and Europe. Maybe the most important factor, actually, given the further influence of the Maezumi-Merzel lineage. Also in Europe the Sanbo Kyodan has been influential; see Enomiya-Lasalle, who was a student of Harada and Yamada. So, balance is needed, even the more when there are personal objections to Sanbo Kyodan. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance needed

message: I moved this section here. It's interesting, and the questions are worth to be asked, but as it is stated now more akin to opinion than to encyclopedic fact. If there are publications which mention the same questions, it deserves to be placed back. Undoubtedly, there are.
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between Sanbo Kyodan Teaching and Buddhist Morality 

message: To the gentleman describing himself as 'myopic bookworm,' there are a lot of historical issues involved in this issue. Today, Japan is a modern country, and a good country. I live here. Modern Japanese are not guilty of the sins of their forefathers, and thank heaven, since I would not want to be guilty of the sins of mine. Countries are not people. They are more like mitochondria with cells living and dying. Countries are delusions. Death (and taxes, of course) is the only reality, but death is far more important. You don't believe these bad 'stories' about the 'masters' you choose to bow before? Well, I do. I do believe they were and are bad men. Yes, of course, there were and are bad Christians too. But they are dissemblers. Each one of us in this life must choose to ally himself with good or bad. Each one of us must decide to delude ourselves or not. Being good is hard, but the point is how much you try. This, I think, is what Buddha and Christ taught. But I do hope your spiritual efforts bear fruit.  --Gunnermanz (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen and Buddhism 

message: This tag has been there for nearly ten years now, without explanation; time to remove it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: Now, yet again I read in this article that "However, Brian Victoria has also been criticized for a lack of accuracy in his citation and translation of texts from the persons he accuses." I've already answered this question. Look at the links. How many times do I have to answer this nonsense? And thank you Jonathan for being the most sincere editor on an otherwise corrupt Wikipedia. Surely Guanyin Bussa is guiding you. Gassho.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.22.190 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've already addressed these questions {!}