Indeed it is not. What's interesting about the made up mentor-disciple pairing is the way it is being used to pertain to 3 different and separate things that are then conflated together. 1) Lotus Sutra as mentor (an unnecessary conceptualisation since the Sutra is abundantly clear about how it should be used) 2) Daiseku Ikeda as mentor (or more generally the relatively recent made up "3 Presidents" concept) 3) a generalised concept of mentor disciple relationship) that wraps the other two into a 'teaching' that is as flawed as it is unnecessary. The result of using the same labels to describe different things is to muddy the waters, create confusion and is the opposite of being clear. Anyway one looks at it, this use is poor teaching. Good teachers clarify, in the words of the Sutra, they make distinctions, separating the general from the specific.I can't help but observe that applying the m-d relationship in these different ways opens up the way to putting sincere believers into a double bind, should they be unfortunate enough to swallow thus guff. What is the way to untie the complex knot that the SGI study department is merrily trying? Take a leaf out of Alexander's book and slice through this Gordian nonsense with the sharp sword of the Lotus Sutra. One simply doesn't need concepts of mentor disciple relationship to get close to the Sutra and practice it to the best of one's ability. One only needs a seeking, sincere mind, faith and the ability to read it's glorious words. By all means use Nichiren as a guide but again one doesn't need complex, second rate commentaries in what Nichiren taught...but then I guess that would leave a lot if folks out of a job...and we wouldn't want that would we? Not. ;)
The priests would be reduced to two robes and a bowl.