After Mahikari... blogger mechanics

Back in the early days of this blog, I invited readers to submit their own posts on topics that interest them. This is for people who want to start a new topic, rather than just make a comment on an existing post. (Comments on existing posts are always welcome too, of course, and I thank you for those!)

With a few excellent exceptions, most of the posts have been from me so far, so I think it might be time to remind you all that you are very welcome to send in new posts as well. The variety would be good, but in addition to that, I look like being extremely busy with other things for the next month or so. It would be great if some of you could help me keep the blogger ball rolling during that time. So, if you don't have a web site or blog of your own, and you have something to say, please think about writing something for this blog.

You can write anything, of any length. It could be your views on a Sūkyō Mahikari topic that particularly interests you. It could be your story of how "they" got you in and how you got yourself out of Mahikari. It could be some contradictory quotes from within official Sūkyō Mahikari publications, or something on mind control, or even just a joke...we haven't had many of those!

Here's one that I saw somewhere recently: Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Anyway, the mechanics for sending in a post of your own is to send the text (and title, please) to me via ordinary email. Click on View my complete profile (above-right on your screen) to go to my email address. I will add in a header line saying who contributed the post (this can be a nickname, your real name, or just Anonymous).

Alternatively, you could just use the comment function below this post, but in that case, please indicate at the start of your "comment" that it is really a new post rather than a comment. I will then know to copy it across as a new post. If you take this option, I suggest that you write your article first, and then paste it into the comment window. Comment windows sometimes do strange things, and I'd hate you to lose a half-written article due to a blogger glitch. (This is the voice of experience!)

Since I'm talking about blogger mechanics, perhaps I should mention that lots of links to a blog help move it closer to page 1 of search engine results. So, if you like this blog and want to help more people find it, and if you have some sort of web page or blog yourself, please consider adding a link to this blog somewhere on your own site. Thanks!

真光と犬の話 - the Mahikari dog story

This post is contributed by 火の鳥phoenix3000. It draws on information from Gotaidanshū (interviews with Okada) and the 30-year Chronicle of Sūkyō Mahikari (both in Japanese) to analyze the Mahikari dog story and the stories surrounding Okada's revelation claims.

真光の教え、教義には、おかしなところや矛盾があちこちにあります。でも、信者は、何のことであれ、教団側の主張が正しくて、岡田と彼に続く教え主の教えに合わないものは「邪神、邪霊の仕業によるもの」「逆法である」、などと教え込まれていますから、変なことを変だと認識するのはなかなか困難なようです。

岡田良一が世界救世教の信者（それも幹部）だったことを隠していましたし、崇教真光ではそれを否定さえしました。「他宗教は勉強、研究しただけ」としています。岡田自身も、昭和３４年、高熱による五日間の人事不省から醒めた時、突然、「起て、光玉と名乗れ。手をかざせ。」と神示があったとし、突如、何の前触れもなく、神より、新たな名を賜り、何も知らなかった「手かざし」をするよう命じられたかのような印象を、聞く人に与えます。でも実際には岡田は救世教で「手かざし」には慣れていて、しかも自分のことを「光玉先生」とよばせていた等の事実がわかると、この響きの良い『神示』もかなり疑わしくなります。

アンさんが取り上げた「犬の話」ですが、そんな些細なことにこだわるなんて、と真光信奉者は怒って批難してきそうです。でも、調べてみると、インチキ勲章，天杖、「菩薩の行」終了宣言等と同様に興味深い面が出てきました。

＜１＞　　御対談集　　　　　　　　昭和６０年　（１９８５）初版発行

　　たしか昭和３４年の２月２７日ですが、私（良一）の家の神様を拝んでいたら、大きな声で「光玉と名のれ。きびしき世となるべし」という声がきこえたのです。
　　. . . . . . . . .　それから「手をかざして人の病気を治せ」と言われるでしょう。
　　私ははじめ、自分にそんな聖者みたいな真似が出来るとはいくら馬鹿でも考えられない。そんなことを考えるのはそれこそ気違いだ。待てよ、借金返しに夢中で自分は気が変になったのじゃないか、ひょっとしたらキツネかタヌキに憑かれたんじゃないかというわけで、一週間くらいは立ち上がる気は全然しなかった。
　　ところがふと犬に手をかざしてみたら犬の病気が治っちゃった。それが始まりで、. . . . .　　　　　　　（P２８０　ー昭和４９年２月）

＜２＞　　　崇教真光３０年史　　　　　　平成元年　（１９８９）発行

　　昭和２９年、救い主５３歳
　　建設会社の重役をなさる等、ご苦労をされながらも借金返しは殊の外順調に進んでいきました。
　　神様に詫び、ご先祖に詫び、ひたすら己を捨てた救い主の周辺に、人知人力では及びもつかないことが度々起きての返済であったのです。
　　声なき声に導かれ、自殺を思い止どまった後、ふとしたことから手をかざして、瀕死の犬を救った頃から、救い主は神霊の世界へ関心を深められ、借金返しのかたわら神の世界の勉強もされていました。　　　　　　　　　　　　　（P６６）

岡田が最初に「手かざし」したのが、「犬」だったなんて、ちょっと冴えないけど、アンさんの指摘するように、「手かざし」をまず犬にした、という話は、人と違って、犬には暗示が効かないから、手かざしの効果が「客観的なもの」に聞こえる、という利点はあります。

さて、この犬がどんな状態だったのか、三つの話があるようです。＜１＞では病気、＜２＞では瀕死、別のところ（昔の初級研修会）では盲目、手かざしで「目が見えるようになった」というもの。

犬への手かざしの時期は、＜１＞では昭和３４年、「神示の後」となっていますが、＜２＞では『自殺を思い止どまった後』とありますから、第二次大戦のあと、しかし、あの「神示」より前、つまり昭和３４年２月２７日以前　、ということになります。というのは、「借金返しのかたわら」とありますが、「借金返済が終了したのは昭和３４年１月」と『崇教真光３０年史』（P６６）にも明記してあるからです。ある真光信奉者のインターネットサイトでは、犬への手かざしは、昭和２３年（１９４８）の出来事になっているそうです。

この犬の話を覚えている方、いらっしゃいませんか。何時頃の出来事で、岡田はどんなふうにこの犬と出会ったのか、犬はどんな状態だったのか、聞いたこととそれを聞いた時期を知らせて頂けませんか。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　
それにしても、なぜこんなに混沌としているのでしょうか。事実はどこに行ってしまったのでしょうか。
事実を正確に表し、残す、ということは岡田にとっても、その真光（特に崇教真光）にとっても、その関心ごとではないようです。救世教で習った手かざしで、岡田は実際犬にお浄めしたのでしょうか。もしそうだとして、その体験を彼が「神示の話」に絡めたから、食い違いが生じてきたのでしょうか。それとも、もともと架空の話だったんでしょうか。「ふとしたことから」手かざしをした犬が二匹もいたのでは、この話はますます冴えなくなります。

また、＜　ふとしたことから手をかざして . . . . . .　神の世界の勉強もされていました。＞　との箇所は岡田の救世教時代のことをにおわせています。崇教ではこう表現して済ませてしまっています。救世教時代のことは、岡田自身が、自分の家族（妻子）のことと同様に、完全に抹殺してしまっています。
なぜでしょう。都合が悪いのでしょうか。都合が悪いことは隠す。では、岡田とその教団が言っていることは、彼らにとって都合がいいから言っているのであって、必ずしも事実を言っているとは限らなくなります。ちなみに、岡田が救世教に所属していたことを公に知らされないのは信者達なのです。

それともう一つ、真光を知っている方なら、ん？変だな、と思われたことでしょう。＜１＞の最初の部分です。高熱による五日間の人事不省から醒めた時、という『御聖言』と違って、家の神様を拝んでいた時、と岡田は言っているのです。同一人物が、教祖誕生の、最も重要な『神からの最初の啓示』の状況に関して違うことを言っているのです。日付に「たしか」などという言葉も付け加えています。高熱による五日間の人事不省という状態なら、「神懸かり」になる幻覚や妄想が起こりやすい意識状態かな、とも考えたのですが、こうなると、五日間の人事不省という話も、疑わしくなります。　　　　　　　　　　　

ついでにー　『御聖言』では「最初の啓示」の直後、「この時以後、私は以前にも増して、しばしば神の啓示をいただくようになった。」と言っています。これも、なかなか響きがいいのではありますが、「以前にも増して」ということは、「最初の啓示」の前にも啓示があったのか？との疑問も出てきます。
　
いや、そういうことではなく、これは立教に関する「最初」の啓示であって、神の啓示は以前からもあったのだ、とします。それがどんな啓示だったのか、聞いて知っている方、いらっしゃいますか。『崇教真光３０年史』ではそれらしきことと言えば、＜２＞の「声なき声に導かれて、自殺を思い止どまった」時ぐらいでしょう。
　　　　何処からの声か、ーーお前の先祖の罪えが消えるぞ、消えるぞーー　　突然の声なき声。　　（P６５）との説明があります。
この「声なき声」を「神の啓示」と呼べるでしょうか。守護霊の導きというのなら、なきにしもあらず、ですが。それとも、「最初の啓示」以前の「啓示」が、「ヨのみ霊持ちて娘に与えよ」の紙切れのように、
何処からともなく現れて、信者を納得させてしまうのでしょうか。

岡田は自分の教えを『金口の説法』と称して、一言一句を正しく伝えよ、と言ったけれど、崇教真光では、都合が’悪い箇所は、黙ったまま削除して、そんなものは最初から無かったかのようにするんでしょうね。
よくて、「神の仕組み」「御経綸の変化」と言って済ませてしまうのではないでしょうか。真光では教祖を含めた「教え主」（時に幹部も含む）の言うことが絶対真実であり、信者はそれを擁護すれども、疑問をはさんではいけない心理的束縛がありますから、教えの持つ矛盾には気づかずに、あるいは意識の奥に押し込んで、「霊障、霊障」と自分に言い聞かせながら、「手かざし」に、「お導き（勧誘）」に、と励み続けるのでしょう。

岡田の『神』が、岡田のことを「人類永遠の師」であると人類に押し付けるには、内容がちょっとお祖末過ぎないかな、と思うこの頃です。
　

Mahikari book endorsements

It worries me that Sūkyō Mahikari members and people who want to find information about Mahikari are starting to refer to and quote from Is the Future in Our Hands, by Dr. Tebecis.

Is this book a reliable source of information concerning Sūkyō Mahikari?

Some people would assume that this book is a reliable source, simply because Tebecis has a scientific background and has over 30 years of experience of Mahikari. In some ways, the latter is indeed a good basis for discussing Mahikari, but is it an unbiased basis?

Tebecis has had a leadership role of some sort or other for almost all those years, and is currently the head of Sūkyō Mahikari in his region. It is his job to promote Mahikari. He also earns revenue from the sale of his books. I assume it is also his sincere belief that he should promote Mahikari...so I can't fault him on that...but I do think that misguided sincerity is rather dangerous. People recognize sincerity and find it persuasive, apparently, even if the subject matter flies in the face of commonsense.

Speaking from my own experience, years of sincere belief in something, and dedicated effort to promote something, can blind one to really basic considerations. For example, I wonder if Dr. Tebecis has yet noticed that Buddha died roughly 2,500 years ago, rather than 3,000 years ago? I wonder if he's noticed that the dog story does not make sense, or that Okada could not have been a construction supervisor at the same time that he was a full-time SKK kanbu? I wonder if he has ever clearly and consciously considered the implications of devoting his life to a religious organization that is based entirely on one man's claim that he had received a special divine mission from God? Hasn't he noticed that Mahikari teachings are so cleverly constructed, and so full of circular arguments, that there is logically no way of proving or disproving them, whatever happens?

Oops! Now I think my bias is showing [grin]. Perhaps I'd better move on to the other point I wanted to make.

On the website advertizing Dr. Tebecis' book, endorsements are shown alongside or below the content information shown for the chapters. For these endorsements to be convincing, I think they would need to be from impartial outsiders. I expect that most viewers would speculate (as I do) that many of these people are members of Sūkyō Mahikari, and therefore demonstrating bias.

Well, let's not speculate...let's see if we can find out!

One of the endorsement authors says he is a Mahikari member, and one says he isn't. The rest don't say either way, but I already know from other former members that at least two of the others are long-term Mahikari members.

The other people are from a number of different countries, but, according to the comments and emails I've received, the readers of this blog are also from far and wide. Maybe between us we can deal with the rest of the list!

Ch.1: Mary Clarke, businesswoman, Adelaide, South Australia.
Ch. 2.: Tan Kok Tim, accountant, Singapore (it is not clear from the endorsement whether or not he is a member, but he sent a comment to the blog saying he is a member of SM)
Ch. 3: Jay Srirekam, musician, singer and songwriter, Vancouver, Canada (says he is a member)
Ch. 4: Dr Masayo Goto, political scientist, Tokyo, Japan
Ch. 5: None. This page just quotes the section in which Dr. Tebecis tries to debunk academic studies of SM.
Ch. 6: Dr John Broderick, medical practitioner, Canberra, Australia (member of SM)
Ch.7: Dr Ellen Tabak, social and behavioral scientist, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
Ch. 8: Marguerite Gloster, school teacher, Canberra, Australia (member of SM)
Ch. 9: Prashant Talwalkar, businessman, Mumbai, India (member of SM)
and Laura Ward, retired art gallery director, Auckland, New Zealand
Ch.10 Dr Sawang Kasetkeaw, agricultural scientist, Bangkok, Thailand
Ch. 11: Grant Chilcott, vocalist/bandleader, Auckland, New Zealand (member of SM)

[List updated August 21 2006 to reflect additional information received in the comments below]

Please submit a comment (or send me an email) if you know whether or not the other people on this list are members of Sūkyō Mahikari. I hope I haven't embarrassed any of the above people by listing them here. If you are on the above list but have since left Mahikari, I do apologize.

In the process of collecting this list, I happened to read the section quoted from Chapter 5 of Dr. Tebecis' book, and noted the following excerpt from Academic studies of Sukyo Mahikari, in chapter 5, Uniting Religions:

Certain things, particularly involving human consciousness, beliefs, behaviour and so on, cannot be understood deeply without personal experience. The usual academic approach using the '‘scientific method'’ has emphasised being objective by studying the subject as an outside observer. This has certain merits, but I believe that a combination of both the subjective, experiential approach and the outside observer approach is necessary when it comes to studying humans. Alone, either extreme is limiting and can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Finally, I've found something written by Dr. Tebecis that I can heartily agree with! That last sentence says it all. The main problem here, though, is that it is not logically possible for anyone to simultaneously use the subjective, experiential approach and the outside observer approach. One cannot be "in" Mahikari and living that mindset at the same time as being "outside" Mahikari and being objective. The only possible way to combine both approaches would be to do that consecutively.

Just to repeat the main point, he says that both the "subjective, experiential approach" and the "outside observer approach" are needed to avoid incorrect conclusions. Academic investigators excel at the latter, but typically have little of the former. Dr. Tebecis has plenty of the former, but none of the latter. I'm not aware of any academic investigators who have had long-term experience of Mahikari themselves before taking the outside observer approach....but we have!

By "we", of course I mean the numerous vocal former members who publish material, anonymously and otherwise, on websites and blogs. I don't know all of these people of course, but the ones I do communicate with average well-over 10 years experience each of the Sūkyō Mahikari culture, including regular okiyome and the study and practice of teachings.

For me personally, it has taken many years and an awful lot of effort to regain the objectivity of an outside observer, but I think I'm finally getting there. And I can assure you that there is no way any of us are going to forget our experience of being "in" Sūkyō Mahikari!

Okada's busy schedule

The above is a tentative timeline based on the information I've found so far. It is far from comprehensive, and may need to be modified as I find more information.

The above timeline shows Okada's activities between the end of the war and the founding of Mahikari (originally called Yōkōshi Tomo no Kai), and shows the placement of some of the events mentioned in the previous group of posts (back to and including the "dog story").

Items with black arrows are information from the Human Rights Without Frontiers site, and the cited source is An unpublished manuscript by S. Chang, ch. 12, 1-3. This information is not presented as being "official" Sūkyō Mahikari material, but it is clearly pro-Mahikari, and Mahikari apologists have posted links to this article. Firm dates are incredibly scarce in official Mahikari material, so I've needed to rely on Chang's article more than on primary sources.

Items with red arrows are from official Mahikari sources, and the green arrows denote information from non-Mahikari sources.

The colored bars represent the time spans of Okada's major activities. The green bars show Okada's SKK activity (according to SKK sources). The blue bars show Okada's employment (according to Chang's information, but the company name is from Mahikari sources), and the yellow bar shows the activities related to Okada's spiritual development (again according to Chang).

My first impression from this timeline is that Okada must have been literally working "night and day" for many of these years in order to have fitted in all the things he is supposed to have done.

Even if we ignore the yellow bar for the moment, how did Okada manage to be a full-time paid kanbu with SKK and an advisor (some sources say he was a supervisor) with a construction company at the same time? If being an SKK kanbu is as time-consuming as being a Mahikari kanbu, he would not have had time for anything else at all!

Are any of you living in Tokyo and willing to help out here? I have the address of a Tada Construction Company, in Tokyo, established in 1947. Would anyone be able to visit them and check if and when Okada worked there, and exactly what role he had in that company?

Apparently, Okada had massive debts at the end of the war, and managed to pay them all off just before starting Mahikari. If he wasn't working for a construction company, where did he get that money? Again, if SKK is anything like Mahikari, he would have been earning very little during the years he was a kanbu.

The above is the most glaring problem with this timeline, but there are a couple of points which look just a little odd, too.

For example, what happened in 1949? Suddenly he went from selling boots and being an ordinary SKK member, to an impressive sounding job and an appointment as kanbu. Did someone wave a magic wand?

Also, what happened in 1953? At about the same time, he was sacked as an SKK kanbu, but remained a member, and was promoted to the Board of Directors of Tada. Was there some sort of connection between these events?

Something tells me there was a lot more going on during those years than we are told...or a lot less!

Then, of course, there is the yellow bar to consider. What exactly was Okada studying? The teachings of other new Japanese religions and the Takeuchi document? What were the "several religions" he joined?

According to Chang, Okada's ascetic training at the Buddhist temple was: In order to further his spiritual development and deepen his spiritual practice of humility. Since Sunkyō defines Bosatsu no Gyō as being primarily about humility, perhaps Okada's five years of Bosatsu training are supposed to be in this time frame, too. (See earlier post on Bosatsu no Gyō.)

Does anyone have any details to flesh out, or explain, or contradict the above timeline?

Delirium, delusion, dreams, damn lies...or the truth?

In my last post, I suggested that neither okiyome nor the substantiating myths told by Mahikari provide convincing evidence to support the notion that Okada was a special holy man who knew "all the truth". As far as I can see, that just leaves Okada's revelations as the sole basis for kamikumites' devotion to Sūkyō Mahikari.

To spell this out in simple terms, Okada claimed that he received revelations from God, and that, according to these revelations, Okada himself was a special soul. He claimed God had given him the mission of saving the world, and that he alone knew all the truth.

So...Okada said he received revelations that, by implication, made everything else he said unquestionably true, and we believed him! On the basis of this belief, kumite have built an enormous religious organization that spans 80 countries and uses up all the spare time and energy of thousands upon thousands of followers who devote themselves heart and soul to trying to live according to Okada's teachings.

I think this basic claim of revelations from God needs a bit of scrutiny.

There are several possible approaches to a discussion of Okada's revelations.

One approach would be to question whether Okada actually received revelations from God, or whether he himself just made up all the revelations and teachings of Mahikari.

Various researchers, such as Davis, and various former kumite have compared Okada's teachings with those of Ōmoto and SKK and found large chunks of surprisingly similar material. A short-lived pre-war group, Shinsei Ryūjinkai, drew heavily on the Takeuchi document for its doctrine, as did Okada. The small segment of teachings from Makoto-no-michi (a minor "new" Japanese religion that slightly predates Mahikari) that I've seen also look a lot like Okada's teachings.

One has to wonder if Okada simply "borrowed" doctrine from these other groups, and glued it together using his own imagination. (This would put a new slant on Okada's claim that other religions contain only part of the truth...perhaps he was thinking primarily of these Japanese new religions rather than the major world religions when he said that.)

The above line of thought raises further questions. Much of the doctrine of these other groups was also derived from revelations. So, if revelations are a valid form of obtaining information, perhaps we should expect to see similarities between the various doctrines. If revelations reveal "the truth", perhaps we should even expect the doctrines to be identical.

Since the various doctrines are not identical, do we then compare revelations and try to decide which revelations are more accurate? Do we compare the source of the revelations....were they from a high-level deity or just from a minor deity or spirit?

Alternatively, we could look at the actual content of Okada's revelations. We could examine Goseigen, Norigotoshū, kenshū teachings, Sunkyō, and anything else written by Okada, and pick out contradictions. We could check if his various predictions have proved correct or not.

We could also check how well the current public face of Mahikari conforms to "all the truth" in Okada's teachings. There are some glaring discrepancies. Are these false advertising? Or, is the current Sūkyō Mahikari organization teaching that, on one hand, Okada's revelations and teachings are absolutely true, and on the other hand, that some parts of them are not so true? Logically, they can't have it both ways.

Any of the above topics would be interesting to explore further but, ultimately, I think that all of the above miss the main point.

The fundamental question is, are revelations a reliable means of receiving valid information? Well, are they?

Somehow I imagine that, if the first piece of information I learnt about Mahikari was that it is based on revelations from God that someone claimed to have received when he woke up after 5 days of high fever, I would have run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. I actually can't remember when I first heard about the revelations. I think it must have been after I was already excited at the prospect of being able to give okiyome, because somehow that titbit seemed to slip past without me consciously evaluating it or even raising an eyebrow.

Did you see the God on the Brain link in the comment Jejune sent on the Tenjō post? This article says that a physiological condition known as temporal lobe epilepsy can cause religious hallucinations, and suggests that the religious visions experienced by some religious leaders may have been caused by this condition. It states that the nature of our temporal lobes may determine whether or not we have the capacity for religious experiences.

The implication of the neurophysiological approach to revelations is that Okada may well have genuinely believed that he had received revelations from God. I'm not sure if this is better or worse than thinking he lied. My experience of life in general has led me to think that good but misguided intentions can create even more havoc than bad intentions. Still, at this point, the relevant thing is not so much whether or not Okada believed the revelations, but whether or not kumite should believe them.

Myths used to substantiate Sūkyō Mahikari - Conclusion

Finally, we're at the last item on my list of substantiating myths...the archeological "findings" that support Okada's version of history.

Okada claimed that people were living in Japan a million years ago, and that future archeological finds would prove him correct. Such confident predictions imply that Okada was receiving privileged information from God. I guess it would tend to bolster Okada's credibility (with some people, at least) if his predictions did prove to be correct. Conversely, failure to find evidence proves nothing. Sūkyō Mahikari can simply claim that the evidence hasn't been found yet.

You may remember Keishu's teachings from October 5, 1996, in which she reports that:

Splendid stone tools from the palaeolithic period were found in strata dating back all of 600,000 years, which is 100,000 years earlier than the appearance of Peking man.

Further on in the same teachings she says, Facts unthinkable according to ideas commonly held until now are coming to light and being proved by archaeology. The predictions Sukuinushisama made regarding the great expanse of human history are turning out to be correct.

There is an excellent and detailed article concerning these archeological "findings" on this page of the Mahikari Exposed site, so I'll let you read the details there. Just briefly, it turns out that the evidence of 600,000 year-old tools was faked.

Shin'ichi Fujimura, an archaeologist, was caught on video planting the artifacts at a site he was working on, and admitted that he had planted almost all of the artifacts that had been regarded as proof of people being in Japan 600,000 years ago.

It seems there is plenty of reliable archaeological evidence from the Late Palaeolithic period, which dates from about 35,000 years ago until 12,000 years ago. However, as of November 2001, no reliable evidence of any earlier human habitation had been found, despite plenty of searching. What about in the last 4 years? Does anyone know if anything has been found yet?

I should point out that Mahikari itself is not implicated in this hoax. Firstly, this series of events simply illustrates Keishu's very human fallibility. If Okada was receiving inside information from God, and if he is still guiding Keishu from the world of spirit, why didn't Keishu know the finds were a hoax? Secondly, these events serve to remind us that evidence to back up Okada's claim has still not been found.

So....round about now, you might be wondering why I bothered to draw up this list of "substantiating myths", and why I spent the last few weeks questioning their validity. Well, my logic process goes something like this.

I think that the really fundamental premise underlying anyone's belief in Mahikari is that its founder, Okada, was something special; that he received divine revelations containing "all the truth", and that God gave him a special divine role. If we believe that, then we are still kumite. If Okada was not someone special, then the entire basis of Mahikari crashes.

So, what does Mahikari present to people to convince them to believe the above? We have the contents of Okada's revelations from God (Goseigen and his other teachings), we have okiyome, and we have the "substantiating myths"...the peripheral stories, starting with the "dog story", that we are told to bolster Okada's reputation as a holy man. My plan was to work through these elements one by one, and see how much was left.

What do you think? Are any of those substantiating myths still worth anything in terms of making us think Okada was special?

What about okiyome? Even after writing those 4 posts back in the December archives, I'm still not sure exactly what I think. Either its not special....or it is special but Mahikari doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Various sources, including Davis, have already noted that Okada borrowed okiyome from SKK, which in turn derived its spiritual purification/healing technique from Ōmoto. I've recently seen a genealogy of groups, prepared by another former member, that are direct or indirect offshoots of Mahikari or SKK. Altogether he has identified and verified 14 different offshoot groups from SKK that practice some form of "okiyome". If we add in Ōmoto and SKK, that's 16 groups, and that's before we add in groups that practice pranic healing, reiki, etc. (Keep an eye on Mahikari Exposed. I believe this genealogy will be published there soon.)

So, regardless of what we think about okiyome itself, it doesn't appear to provide proof of Okada being "special".

As far as I can see, that only leaves one thing as the sole foundation of belief in Sūkyō Mahikari...Okada's revelations.

No prizes for guessing what I'll be writing about next time I have enough free time to write a new post!

Bosatsu no gyō - Myths used to substantiate Sūkyō Mahikari (Part 5)

Okada's bosatsu no gyō claim certainly sounds impressive, but what exactly does it mean?

I checked a few Buddhist websites, and found that bosatsu no gyō is the Japanese term for bodhisattva training. In the Buddhist sects I read about, a bodhisattva is someone at the penultimate stage of enlightenment who chooses to postpone his or her own enlightenment in order to help others attain enlightenment, and who vows not to move on to enlightenment until every single person in the world has attained enlightenment.

According to the pro-Mahikari article on the Human Rights Without Frontiers site, Okada did ascetic training at a Zen Buddhist temple sometime between the "dog story" (1948) and the establishment of Mahikari (1959). During those years, this site claims that Okada also studied several religions and various other matters, experimented with okiyome, etc. Mahikari claims that Okada also worked for a construction company during all those years, and we now also know that Okada was a full-time paid kanbu in SKK for a number of years within that time frame.

I originally assumed that Okada did his bosatsu no gyō at the above Zen Buddhist temple, but how did Okada fit in five years of bosatsu no gyō in such a busy schedule? Can one do bosatsu no gyō on a very part-time basis? Does anyone know exactly what one does and what time commitment is involved?

In the glossary of terms at the end of Sunkyō, the explanation for bosatsu no gyō says:

Special spiritual training that includes the practice of humility. A bosatsu is a god who descends to the highest part of the astral or physical world to do spiritual training. Even Seikannon took on the form of a bosatsu and descended to the physical world to do training and give salvation to God's children.

This does not sound much like the various Buddhist descriptions of bodhisattva training. I wonder if Okada has redefined the words bosatsu and bodhisattva? If he is not using these words in the Buddhist sense, then I think I'll need to examine Okada's writings at length in order to work out exactly what he did mean when he claimed that God had him complete five years of spiritual training of Bodhisattva. (Goseigen, December 1965).

Since the above revelation was in 1965, perhaps Okada's bosatsu no gyō (as defined by him) was concurrent with (or even just synonymous with) his early years of Mahikari activity?

I'm afraid this particular post just poses the questions and provides no answers. I hope to revisit this topic at some stage, but just at the moment I don't have time to investigate further. Sorry!

Does anyone else have any relevant information?

Zante - Myths used to substantiate Sūkyō Mahikari (Part 4)

The next topics from my list of Sūkyō Mahikari's substantiating myths are meeting the Pope and being friends with Swami Rama, and receiving the order of St. Dennis of Zante.

The kenshū story about Okada receiving the order of St. Dennis of Zante has already been discussed on the A Study of Mahikari Culture page of the Mahikari Exposed site. For those of you who may not have already seen this, I'll give an overview here.

According to the Mahikari organization, the International American Institute awarded Okada the title Knight Commander and the decoration of The Sovereign (Greek) Order of the Knights of Saint Dennis of Zante in 1972. This is the medal you see Okada wearing in the photo above. They claim the award ceremony was attended by many very prominent people, and that the people who had previously received this award included American Presidents, Popes, Cardinals, and Archbishops.

The Mahikari Exposed site states that: A world wide search of data bases, libraries and feed back from chivalry experts has revealed the following: This self styled Order was founded by a certain notorious 'count ' Pericles Voultsos in the 1940s or 50s and was distributed fairly widely by him. Since it was a complete invention and didn't mimic a genuine Order it was not challenged...The ploy of these self styled 'orders ' to gain membership is to send their award to well known personalities and then use their names as 'members '.

The Exposed site also reports the following: When an organisation called the International American Institute was contacted in Washington DC, USA., it claimed it had nothing to do with giving out awards for service to the world and thought the award mentioned above was probably bogus. No other listing for an International American Institute of Academy has been found world wide to date.

Well, that all seems pretty clear. I don't think Sūkyō Mahikari can use that award to boost Okada's reputation anymore. How embarrassing for the poor guy.

[Feb 2007 note: When I wrote the above, I assumed that Okada was the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of this hoax. Now I'm not so sure. If you look at the account of the presentation ceremony in Daiseishu (p. 175-181), you will note that nobody from the International American Institute was present to bestow the award. Mr. Takeo Fukuda attended "as the respresentative of the sponsors", and Mr. Toshio Matsuda presented the medal and certificate. So, who organized and paid for the glittering reception? Did the medal come in the post? Or did someone within the Mahikari organization fabricate the entire thing, including making the medal?]

Meeting Pope Paul VI (in 1973) and being friends with Swami Rama are not actually "myths" of course. These are facts. The only thing I want to comment on here is the logic.

Mind control did not make us completely blind. Even though we were taught, and believed, that Okada was the only one to know "all the truth", I think we still knew, objectively, that Sūkyō Mahikari is quite a minor player in the religious world. It was reassuring to see photos of Okada meeting the Pope and to hear of friendly comments from Swami Rama. Logically, however, this does not make sense.

Okada taught that all other religions contain only part of the truth, and that, The more you support such religions and traditions the more you will be standing in the way of the progress of the divine plan (from Sunkyō, pp. 25-26). Why should we have cared what the leaders of other religious groups thought of Okada? Why does Sūkyō Mahikari even mention these facts?

[Feb 2007 note: Mahikari publications talk of Swami Rama in glowing terms, but for a different perspective, do an Internet search on him and see the various accusations of fraud and sexual misadventure.]