Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:43, 18 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 40 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Another major reversion

Ubikwit, you have been requested repeatedly to discuss it on the Talk page before doing a large-scale revert of the work of other editors. I haven't been following this that closely, but from reading it Daveler16's contribution was a coherent argument that must have taken hours or days to put together. You can't just revert it with a bald assertion in the edit summary. That is disruptive. The book was published by Oxford University Press. If you want, you're free to make your case here that it has a "pro-SG bias". But you have to make the case. You can't just assert it. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Margin1522 You and the other pro-SG editors have repeatedly been cautioned about misrepresenting sources and posting promotional content. All of these incidents can and will be used in any future ArbCom case related to this article.

Daveler has now blatantly misrepresented the Global Citizens source (p.32), a book which already has a highly pro-SG bias, and simply ignores the history of Makiguchi and his writings.

I'm not here to waste my time arguing with pro-SG advocates. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit:, I've been trying to get you into a discussion

of the problems that you have with other editors' contributions. Misplaced Pages:Consensus is the way it's supposed to work. That means that sometimes we have to compromise and make the effort to persuade other editors. I really don't know what to say if you think this is a waste of your time. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. Ubikwit, let me get this straight: if a source is extremely critical of the SG, it's neutral and objective; if a source happens to support what the SG says about itself, it's self- serving. Is that your view? Noah Brannen and Brian Victoria are in no way negative - they just have a clear, objective view that Jane Hurst and Daniel Metraux lack. Is that correct? And btw I agree with Margin1522: this page is not your personal property. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You evade the issue of your misrepresenting the source you cited, which is the only point that matters here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely possible I entered a wrong page number or something. Would you mind terribly letting me know exactly what I "misrepresented"? And the issue is nuisance reverting - scholars have come to conclusions you diaagree with, so you are denigrating their work and making changes with no discussion. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that what Brandengurg wrote - which you have twice deleted - retains you connection to NS, whilestating clearly (more clearly yjan I did, which is why I liftrted it from his/her Sandbox) that Makiguchi and Toda brought their own ideas and teachings to the practice of Nichiren Buddhism, which teachings ad practicies were and are found nowhere in NS. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest World Tribune (Dec. 12) has a speech by Harada announcing a change to the "Religious Tenets" section of the SG "Rules and Regulation". Use to say the SG shall "believe in and accept the Dai Gohonzon of the Three Great Sedret Laws bestowed upon all Jambudvipa...and seek to realize its ultimate goal of widespread propagation of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism..." The new version drops "Dai Gohonzon" and adds "human revolution", to wit: "(The SG) believe in the 3 Great secret Laws underlying the fundamental law of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, chant daimoku encompassing practice for oneself and others to the Gohonzon and base itself on Nichiren Daishonin's writings. It shall strive, through each individual's achieving their human revolution, to realize the ultimate goal of widespread propagation..."

Harada says the reference to the Dai Gohonzon was just left in in deference to those who remembered fondly the ties to the priesthood, but that the Daishonin makes clear it is faith and practice that gives life to the Gohonzon - not a connection to a particular Gohonzon in a particular temple he uses language that rejects that Gohonzon as fundamental, and says the sect at Taisekiji "has absoluterly no relation to the Soka Gakkai".

Now, I can't think of a clearer statement that the SG is in no way dependent on NS for it's teachings. The Dai Gohonzon is absolutely essential to the NS belief system, and the SG rejects it. The notion of human revolution as the basis for widespread propagation has no precedent in Taisekiji canon - Harada even says it's based on Ikeda's writing.

So, once and for all, let's stop trying to argue that the SG beliefs are based on Taisekiji's, and let the editing of "Beliefs and Practices" progress accordingly. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are still trying to take things out of historical context by stating that the beliefs propounded today were always the beliefs and practices, which is nonsense. Did I say that already?

You can add that bit about Harada at the very end of the section, where it belongs in terms of temporal progression.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ubikwit, I take exception to your (frequent) use of the word "Nonsense." Several editors over the course of many edits have pointed out the primacy of Makiguchi's theory of value and later Toda's realizations in prison as launching points in the SG's revival of Nichiren's teachings.

For example, the final paragraph of Makiguchi's final letter from prison one month before his death states: "I am reading Kant's philosophy with care. I have been able to develop a theory of value such as philosophers have attempted but been unable to realize for the past century. Further, I have been able to link this to a faith in the Lotus Sutra and now can see the actual proof of several thousand people . I must admit my own astonishment at this . It is for this reason that the three obstacles and four devils have arisen. It is exactly in accordance with the teachings of the sutra."

In terms of Toda, in a speech delivered on November 2, 1972, Ikeda remarked: “We now greet a new sunrise. It is the dawn of the second chapter of kosen-rufu, a voyage toward realization of true global peace. … It is not too much to say that the Soka Gakkai begins and ends with the philosophy of life. To be more specific, the Soka Gakkai has as its eternal foundation the enlightenment that Mr. Toda attained in prison. The theory of life, however is not one formulated by the Gakkai organization. Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism is in itself the philosophy of life that the Soka Gakkai’s teaching lies in Nichiren Daishonin’s writings and in the enlightenment Mr. Toda who interpreted these documents as revealing the philosophy of life,” (Jan 1973 Seikyo Times, p. 13) (History of the Fuji School, pp. 144-46).

I appreciate your statement that Harada's statement belongs somewhere. But the weight of evidence is that the SG's foundations of belief and practice reach far further than those of NS. This has been referenced by many secondary source citations. This is the belief of the organization itself as demonstrated by even these brief primary sources.

It is academic arrogance and Original Research to categorically dismiss these citations as "nonsense."

BrandenburgG (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. You can include all of that information, but it needs to be presented in a manner that reflects its development over time by different individuals, as you have done, and not as some sort of ahistorical metaphysical doctrine with no determinate origins.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, I apologize if I misunderstood your point.

As we try to unlock this impasse, can we look at an early primary source? is Noah S. Brannen's translation of a section of Toda's "Shakubuku Manual" which was a cornerstone of "The Great Shakubuku March." Brannen, as everyone probably knows, wrote the first English book on the subject of the SG. He was a Christian missionary and his dislike of the SG is very much in evidence. Nevertheless, his bias probably gives his translation of the Shakubuku Kyoten more authenticity for our discussion. At the end, Toda's conclusion is clearly that "Nichiren Shoshu has the goods" (excuse my colloquialism). However, the logic he uses to get to this point is all Makiguchi- and Toda-derived.

Did the SG lead to NS or did NS lead to the SG?:I think this is much more than an academic discussion of which comes first, the chicken or the eggs. The Brannen translation of the Shakubuku Kyoten shows that our article has to place primary weight on the awakenings of Makiguchi and Toda. Then the article should discuss how the awakenings of Makiguchi and Toda lead them to discover, deeply comprehend, and then polish NS. The revival of Nichiren's teachings could not have happened without this progression.

BrandenburgG (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem. I count 4 editors who acknowledge the primacy of Soka Gakkai thought and seem to support a less Shoshu-centric approach to this section, and even tentatively support moving it up. In count one who is opposed to all that, and and every time a change is made in light of the consensus, the one who opposes reverts it What can be done to fix that problem?

Here are some of the beliefs and practices that secondary sources have said were Soka Gakkai beliefs, brought in to Nichiren Shoshu: laity taking an active role in their own salvation; laity actively propagating; compilation of and publication of the writings of Nichiren; not merely "attaining Buddha hood in this lifetime" but improvement of one's daily life as the means to attain Buddhahood; Buddha is life itself; the creation of value in daily li9fe and contributing to social "good" as religious practice; human revolution. Those are off the top of my head so there may even be more, but the point is they are all from secondary sources, some of which use phrases like "this was not part of Nichiren Shoshu" in describing them. True, the SG shares some iconography and ritual with Shoshu - and with Shu, for that matter -- but the reasons for the practice are vastly different, are at the essence of any religious practice, and are uniquely the Soka Gakkai's. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm the only editor not in the advocate camp that is still wasting his breath trying to reason with you.

A majority of advocates does not a consensus make.

This is not a website for you to advocate the "primacy of Soka Gakkai beliefs", it's an encyclopedia.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And, as such, ought to reflect reality. I just enumerated a number of 2nd party statements showing that the SG is not now, nor has ever been, derivative of NS, and that it's primary beliefs are now and always have been derived from the thought of its successive presidents. The issue of what the reality is, and what the sources say, is settled. The problem now is that one person doesn't like it, and will defy and edits made to bring the aerticle closer to reality. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The nature of "reality" and "delusion" is one of the primary questions of Buddhism...

Claims that a dispute has been settled in your favor on the basis of your saying so are not likely to hold up to scrutiny.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Shi agreed with me that the SG belief system is based more on its presidents than on NS. Brandernburg obviously agrees. Margin1522 has expressed the opinion that Beliefs and practices should be moved up if it were re-written with less “assumed” knowledge, as exists in its current position – which I did and you reverted. John Carter said B&P could go first if it could be shown that SG beliefs are not wholly derived from NS – which, as I said, She already acknowledged and which numerous secondary sources support. Your argument seems to be, not that the sources are wrong, but that I’m using them. I don’t know what your idea of “consensus” is, but it doesn’t seem to be the one in common usage. Could you define it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit—Makiguchi was very clear from the beginning of the deviations of the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. He formed his own lay organization rather joining the centuries old Hokkeko, he proposed a morning and evening prayer format for the laity and of course, rejected the temples admonition to adopt the Shinto talisman. Here are just a few quotes that support this history: "I deplore the fact that the majority of priests, though they explain Buddhism in the name of the Daishonin's sacred teachings from Gosho and sutra, do not demonstrate it by showing actual proof. " (Makiguchi, Education For Creative Living, vol. 10, p. 153). "Priests should learn about faith from the Soka Gakkai! You priests were frightened by the persecutions befalling President Makiguchi and slandered him! You are cowards who forsook the Law and abandoned President Makiguchi! If you wish to repent your offenses, you should join us, revere President Makiguchi's will, and follow the teachings of the Buddha." President Toda, November 1946, Value Creation) Nichiren Shoshu priests had forgotten that the power of the Gohonzon can be revealed in one’s daily life in either way until President Makiguchi discussed it. They were astonished at what he brought out, and I am dumbfounded that many of them have since pretended that they have known this principle very well for quite some time. ( President Toda, “History and Conviction of the Soka Gakkai,” 1951, August 1992 Seikyo Times)Ltdan43 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Deviations" are just that, deviations from something that constitutes a base.

Even one of the documents you cite makes an association between "History and Convition..." in its title.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Deviating from something can also mean you're not buying into it at all, not just taking something as a "base" and changing it. As I'm sure you know. Anyway, it looks like here is still another person supporting a change in Beliefs and Practices, and for the same reasons. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ubikfwit: aJane Hurst writes that Makiguchi "changed the earlier pattern of practicing Nichiren's Buddhism in the temple setting." (Edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka,The Faces of Buddhism in America, 998, University of California, Berkley, ISBN 0-520-20460-3, pp. 85–86)

Richard Seager’s interview with Nichiren Shoshu priest, Hosho Siima: “When the Soka Gakkai entered the picture, he says “Nichiren suddenly became a living presence in the religious life of the laity and believers.” Its impact on the established community was an “unprecedented event. There were many within the priesthood who had never heard of the word shakubuku. It was literally the heavens were astonished and the earth moved.” (Richard Seager, Encountering the Dharama, p. 138)Ltdan43 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is a clear majority of editors who are okay with making changes to reflect the SG's doctrinal independence, as well as tidying the section up so it can be moved up to the top; and given that there are plenty of sources to support these edits, I'm going to once again re-write the B&P opening as soon as I have time to do so.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR, and probably based on a rationale of assigning too much weight in an WP:UNDUE manner to cherry-picked sources. If so, it will be reverted, citing those same policies. I suggest you find a new game plan that is conformant to policy.

It cannot be said that the Soka Gakkai had anything like "doctrinal independence" until well after the split with NSS, and even after the split, a lot of the doctrine remains derivative, as per the deviations remarks above.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all it is a bit exaggerated to speak of any ‚majority‘ of editors as many have simply given up on the article full stop. Secondly it is quite daring to speak of a ‘doctrine’ as there is none, at least no written document, no board of any kind that can be accounted on issues like prayers their length and content – none – nada … let alone any tricky issues within Buddhist studies. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already listed those who, at least tacitly, have expressed support for a change. The changes I had made previously (and incorporating Brandenburg's work) have plenty of secondary sources that enumerate doctrines that are specifically Soka Gakkai's. And, you are wrong: The December 12th World tribune discusses the "Rules and Regulations of the SG", specifically "Chapter One, Article Two - Religious Tenets". The piece is about changes to two of those tenets. So there is very definitely a "written document" explaining SG belief and practice. I don't believe it's necessary to cite the actual document, as these beliefs and practices are transmitted to members and the public through various publications ad confirmed by examination by various scholars. Which are exactly the sources we have been using. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Who are those so called scholars? --Catflap08 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, the changes I propose were on the site before they were reverted without discussion, so I assume you didn't have a chance to read it, with all it's footnoted. Here it is in my Sandbox - up to "only a priest can be a Bodhisattva of the Earth", with a line if asterisks. There are 29 citations ot that point (some of it was lifted from Brandengurg's Sandbox, everything after the asterisks is just old drafts).--Daveler16 (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You still do not get my point, do you? Who are the authors? Who decides? For a lay organisation there is strikingly little information who decides on such ‘tenets’. Okay one could argue that ‘grumpy’ ordained make decisions in other Buddhist schools but one knows who they are. For a lay organisation there is little information on that or was there a survey or vote amongst SGI’s members? Okay some protestant churches have bit more transparency on that one. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry forgot yet again that SGI’s legal ‘membership’ is not identical to the number of its adherents.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I think I get your point, and I submit that it's entirely irrelevant to a section describing what the SG believes and practices. It's not, as I understand it, a section about processes, internal dynamics, or who sits on what board. Official publications disseminate the doctrine and practices regimen; these are analyzed and/or attested to by scholars. That's what goes into the B&P section, right? I see that you have a special interest in a standard of democratic participation; but really, how many religions make doctrinal decisions based on votes of the entire membership? And why would anyone demand that of any religion before acknowledging the validity of its beliefs? --Daveler16 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, changes made. Good news - I saved the lines about how the SG was a hokkeko, by moving that paragraph to the end of the "Separation" section, where, I think, it actually serves as a nice segue to Belief and Practice (also added the 2014 changes to the Tenets discussed earlier tothat part). Only changed the intro to B&P, and will work on subsections next.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what catflap means by no written doctrine. The SGI follows the writings of Nichiren and commentaries on those writings by President Ikeda. If you look up the term "tripitaka" in the Buddhist dictionary, it explains that since ancient times there are three things that constitute Buddhist canon: the sutras, commentaries on the sutras and precepts. Shakyamuni and T'ien-tai both had successors who expanded on the original teachings with commentaries. Applied to modern times, Nichiren's writings and President Ikeda's commentaries fulfill the first two categories. The only precept in Nichiren Buddhism is to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.Ltdan43 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

SGI's doctrines change with the wind. 2602:306:BCB1:5F9:6475:A059:3D40:DC23 (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 01/22/2014

"Well, Shi agreed with me that the SG belief system is based more on its presidents than on NS.", let alone Nichiren Daishonin. 2602:306:BCB1:6E79:B051:3219:5436:7C54 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 01/22/15

"No, I think I get your point, and I submit that it's entirely irrelevant to a section describing what the SG believes and practices. It's not, as I understand it, a section about processes, internal dynamics, or who sits on what board. Official publications disseminate the doctrine and practices regimen; these are analyzed and/or attested to by scholars. That's what goes into the B&P section, right? I see that you have a special interest in a standard of democratic participation; but really, how many religions make doctrinal decisions based on votes of the entire membership? And why would anyone demand that of any religion before acknowledging the validity of its beliefs? --Daveler16 ... But Daveler, they don't go around like the SGI mentor praising the SGI as "the jewel of democracy". 2602:306:BCB1:6E79:B051:3219:5436:7C54 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 01/22/15

Nichiren would laugh at the notion of non-Nichiren Buddhist "experts" on Nichiren Buddhism. I too am amused at the SGI kissing the bums of every two bit scholar and religious pundit. Why can't SGI stand on its own as the lion king of the religious world as did Nichiren? I maintain because there is very little Nichiren in the Soka Gakkai and much Ikeda. SGI claims itself an evolution of Nichiren thought. I call it a devolution because a modification of perfection whether minor or major, depreciates that which is perfect. 2602:306:BCB1:6E79:B051:3219:5436:7C54 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 01/22/15

Membership

The section on membership could not be more misleading. Anyone familiar with SGI internals will know what I am talking about. In Germany for instance the SGI-D will not have much more than SEVEN official members. The legal loopholes should be mentioned in the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, why don't you put in the article with references to the legal loop holes, Since you know about it and have the article, just put it in. Don't just talk only. Kelvintjy (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And what kind of misleading, malicious information would that be conveying? 10,000 (or whatever) people practice, participate, say they belong to the SGI - and we're going to find an esoteric legal loophole to tell the world there are seven members? That would serve no purpose whatsoever, other than to be deliberately denigrating. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I can not see why legal facts should be a “misleading, malicious information” … in order to do that one goes to the Commercial Registry, pays the fee and is presented with the FACTS. Not all information that is available is ready to be publicised though which does not make it untrue. Get your legal facts right before beating the drum on “misleading, malicious information”. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand the substance of this discussion. First of all this article is about the SG, not the SGI, from what I understand. I know that we have discussed way back opening an article on the SGI but that never happened. So I don't understand why we talking about SGI-D right now. At any rate, from what I have read at http://www.sgi-d.org/kontakt/kulturzentren, there are SGI-D centers in 7 cities: Munich, Dusseldorf, Bremen, Hamburg, Berlin (currently not open), Walldorf, and Bingen. Why are we arguing whether there are only seven members? It seems unproductive to me. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all this article is as much about Soka Gakkai as it is about SGI, if not the article should either be expanded or split into two articles. Soka Gakkai and SGI are in effect the same thing. What seems unproductive to some is irrelevant as SGI-D for istance is a so called eingetragener Verein and registered as Soka Gakkai International-Deutschland e.V. at the Amtsgericht in Darmstadt. Once a Verein is registered it can operate as such throughout Germany … few years back a request was made and there were only six instead of seven members (one died), a fact that was brought to SGI-D’s attention. As full member of a ‘Verein’ one has full insight into financial matters including balance sheets and voting rights in terms of the charter and the ‘Vereinsgesetz’ (law that a ‘Verein’ has to follow). In the end SGI-D has a few thousand adherents or followers (they get a Gohonzon and so forth), but they are NOT legal members. The same tactics are being used world wide including the USA … I think it operates as a corporation there ... is it eleven members or 21 to form a corporation? Not sure.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So is it the case that the "official members" replace the priest class, and adopting such a structure enables them to shroud the organizations activities and status in secrecy? --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: One could suspect that, but that is a matter of opinion. In my opinion SGI’s structure and hence the process of decision making, especially on dogma, is even less open than in any traditional form of Buddhism. What is a fact though is that its members are not really members in a legal sense but pure followers or adherents – just like in most faiths. The term ‘member’ is therefore misleading and factually wrong. The average SGI adherent will therefore have no insight on the amount of donations and how they are being spent. To ‘prove’ its legal membership one have to pay fees all over the world in order to have access to documents most likely kept at courts or other forms of registration offices. I doubt very few will have these documents in a pdf format even though they are public in most democratic countries. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be brought into the article as a separate sub-section? Something like "Autocratic vs. Democratic Structuring." This has been an elephant in the room for a while. There is also good source material about the topic: Hurst (1998) pp. 93-05; Prebish (1999) p. 25; several of the sociological/anthropological case studies that examine grassroots structuring.

BrandenburgG (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The tricky thing though is that nobody (at least nobody I know of) can say that there are no democratic structures amongst LEGAL members. So the term ‘member’ is what is misleading … what influence they have as adherents especially in boards etc would be interesting – its not much though. Any Church congregation has more means of input.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with news on the legal members of SGI? At least in the west? Anyone being able to link legal documents?--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, Catflap08, I think you are doing investigative reporting and OR here. The SG refers to all the people in its ranks as "members"; almost all the published research I have read also uses the nomenclature of "members." If you want to start a section in the article about governance I can work with you. Perhaps you can find a source that supports your POV. I have come across quite a few sources that discuss governance structures. Shall we work on this together?

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect one would have to look into the legal documents … normally not available as public pdf’s but for private use only in paper copy. This in no private opinion of mine but a clear legal matter. So even if one would accept the term “member” then one would still have to differentiate between “members” and an inner circle that exists in each country i.e board of directors. This board is the ONLY body that has full insight into financial matters (balance sheets) and a say on bylaws. What some call members do not have that insight. In the case of the US that would be the Corporation in Australia the Ltd and in Germany the “eingtragener Verein”. I am not aiming at making public names but the number of members of named companies. If one is a member of lets say a political party or church congregation this under normal circumstances has far reaching consequences. I am well aware that the issues of religious corporations is a debate on financial loop holes in the US that has been going on for years, but when faced with an organisation that prides itself with a somewhat imaginary democratisation process the issue gains a different momentum. The problem is that hardly anyone publishes anything about the matter. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC) In the end the issue of membership is not my obsession but rather what the article serves for. Does is inform the reader or does it deceive the reader? And yes it’s also about the democracy that SGI likes to see itself defending and the issue of “members”. Maybe there are supreme members who knows, maybe there is a caste system, who knows, but it is an issue that puzzles me when accessing public records. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Oh by the way, before you ask. I did ask SGI officials (inner circle) about the matter once – they said it’s all about “protecting” the members. Brought tears to my eyes must say or else one could have said “ I am willing to take their money but they have no say on how I am spending it”. That’s a private opinion yet again--Catflap08 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Daisaku Ikeda

I would like to get a consensus on replacing the current image of Daisaku Ikeda. It is very dated, taken in 1961, I recall.

I did find two other pictures of him in the public domain. They were taken by Alexander Yakovlev (https://en.wikipedia.org/Alexander_Yakovlev_(Russian_politician). Yakovlev was quite a controversial figure in Soviet history, one of the architects of perestroika, and a close adviser to Gorbachev.

The pictures can be found here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_3.1.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_3.2.jpg BrandenburgG (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The first photo can be cropped and will work well. Shii (tock) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about using it as the main picture, not being a front view. It does have the virtue of being more recent and a meaningful pose. So I guess I'm neutral. I'll defer to whether others like it. It would definitely work in his article, perhaps lower down, so we should add it there. I would prefer to crop out the interpreter (?) since she isn't a public figure. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the 20' by 15' photo of Ikeda in the Boston Convention center next to George Washington with the SGI Young Women Division saluting it with their flags: http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Anthony_Amp_Elmore_Challenges_a/SGI_Hater.html 2602:306:BCB1:6E79:45BD:3019:C3B0:D1B6 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 01/24/15

SGI endorsed refernces

While browsing through some of the references added lately I came across some titles that did remind me of peacock terms (WP:PEACOCK). Many studies with a sociological character to them have also been sold in SGI bookstores, other authors have spoken in front of SGI audiences in “defence” of SGI. I find this slightly odd and wonder if a note should be made if the material is “SGI endorsed”.--Catflap08 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there might be a difficulty distinguishing between "endorsed" and "like". Strand, for instance, did some articles for Tricycle after he discovered and researched the SGI on his own. That those articles were not denigrating does not mean they were "endorsed"; and the fact that they may have brought him to the attention of Middleway should not in any way diminish their scholarship or integrity - which is what "endorsed by SGI" could conceivably do. There are some books (Buddha in Your Mirror, for instance) that I believe were definitely "endorsed", if not commissioned, by the SGI. Putting the authors you're referring to in the same boat as those would be disingenuous and inaccurate. IMHO. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The article/author you mentioned are the least of my worries. The ones known to have spoken or being invited by an SGI audience are more worrisome, as they are being portrayed as being objective. This may be due to cultural differences on what is regarded being bribed and what not. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fake Buddhism

Soka Gakkai started as a good organisation. It was called Soka Kyoiku Gakkai. 2nd Soka Gakkai President Josei Toda was a good leader and taught correctly. But a little after Daisaku Ikeda came to power things got bad. A Nichiren Shoshu group called Shoshinkai protested against them. Nikken Shonin gave SGI a few more chances and expelled Shoshinkai from the religion for causing many problems. SGI continued to slander the law and broke of from Nichiren Shoshu in 1991. Today SGI is an organisation that breaks the law and does not use the correct teachings from the True Buddha Nichiren Daishonin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.97.110 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are other forums where posts are opinion-based. Misplaced Pages is not such a forum. The editors have serious disagreements but we try to base everything on sources written by experts. We welcome your future participation but first please familiarize yourself with WP guidelines or ask for help. Many of us will gladly help you understand how we work here.

BrandenburgG (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Guidance

One of the most prominent issues of the SGI faith is missing. It is the one on so called “guidance”. Who gives “guidance”? Are they trained for doing so? Are the ones giving “guidance” obliged to undergo any training as counsellors? Any clues and sources?--Catflap08 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue for the people getting the guidance (.e., SGI members) so I'm not sure why it would be an issue for anyone else, or why such a personal thing would be addressed by an academic. Are you researching it? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding of the term “guidance.” I don’t’ know what the Japanese term is, but I know that it is not meant to mean “therapist” or “psychologist.” The Buddhist principle of all people being equal means that we can only encourage each other as equals. The Fowlers write: “The important point about the organization is that, at the local and small group level, encouragement and support of new members is an established policy. Regular meetings mean that social contact, interaction and engagement are core aspects of SGI life. Adherents are encouraged to take responsibility for their own lives and for wider social and global concerns.” (Chanting in the Hillsides, Jeaneane and Merv Fowler, p. 85)

Jeaneane Fowler was formerly head of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Wales, Merv Fowler was also formerly head of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Wales. Both have written a number of books in the Sussex Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices Series including Merv Fowler’s Buddhism (1999) and Zen Buddhism (2006). Jeaneane Fowler has written Hinduism (1997) and Humanism (1999). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltdan43 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I should think that the issue of “guidance” or as some today call it “encouragement” is quite important to life in SGI. Who gives this guidance? Are they qualified to do so? Just asking and wondering why the issue is not part of the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation has gone missing

"In an analysis of books studying the expansion of SGI after the split, Jane Hurst viewed the split as the result of: "lay members seeking religious support for their lives, priests seeking perpetuation of hierarchical institutions"."

The citation for this leads to a completely different book review. Can someone find the citation? Shii (tock) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Shi, I fixed it. Correct source is a website, the Journal of Global Buddhism, 2002 edition.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Shii: since a clear majority of editors who voiced an opinion gave at least tacit approval to moving Beliefs and Practices if it were cleaned up, I've attempted to clean it up (rearranged it a bit, re-wrote so that it wouldn't be necessary to read other sections to understand it) and moved it. The issue was whether or not the SG had its own beliefs independent of Nichiren Shoshu, or whether it is derivative. Among the independent beliefs I (and others) have shown were not teachings of in any Nichiren sect extant in 1928 (when Makiguchi joined: the theory of value, including the necessity of social good; life force as Buddha; laity dong gongyo and proselytizing; the compilation of the writings of Nichiren; improvements in one's mundane activities as a religious goal and a necessary outcome of Buddhist practice; direct communion between laity and the efficacy of the Gohonzon with no form of clerical intercession unnecessary. The only items I can find that could be said to be derived are the recitation of the sutra and chanting of daimoku - which could have been found in any Nichiren sect extant in 1928 when Makiguchi started practicing, or even gleaned from merely reading some of Nichiren's letters. So everything vital to its beliefs and its practice of Nichiren Buddhism - the animating principles of the practice, so to speak, are the SG's own. Hence - not necessary to lead off with "History", and acceptable to start with Beliefs and Practices. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, before you revert again, please share a coherent argument to counter the argument I made above. "I want it the other way" is not, I think, a good argument for a Misplaced Pages editor. Looking forward to what you have to say.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Book Section

It might be worthwhile to link issues regarding Ms. Lisa Jones and Mr. Ikeda in terms of ghost writing. The courts silenced her not because of ghost writing though.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lisa was assigned to copy edit, not ghost write. This is a false accusation that should be put to rest.Ltdan43 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda subsection in history section

Ubiquik castigated me for "bombarding" the page with edits without Talk. Point of information, back on Dec. 23rd Shii wrote "I think the Ikeda and Conflict sections are in a good state and do not need a lot of editing."

I disagreed with his comment stating on that date, "Right now he expanded the organization internationally, supported Komeito, and built the Shohondo. I don't think it taps at all into his unique contributions: probing into the essential message of Nichiren, creating an organization that cuts across Japanese social class, dialogues with seminal figures to introduce the concept of Buddhist humanism to non-members, important contributions to the United Nations and nuclear disarmament, creating a viable Buddhist organization with a remapping of the sacred (http://www.readperiodicals.com/201001/2129973651.html), the creation of a succession plan.

So I have started expanding his accomplishments as supported by citations. This is very important because, as pointed out by many scholars, it is not possible to understand the SG without examining the contributions of Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda. I have not deleted any material as per our agreements in the past. I've done this chronologically--Ubikwit, that is something you've insisted on in the past. I worked on his accomplishments in the 60s and then started working on his accomplishments in the 70s.

However, in the interests of editor harmony, I will try to post more in the Talk page. In the section on the 70's I would like to change the Sho-Hondo section to "Relationship with Nichiren Shoshu." In the 70s Ikeda contributed many facilities to NS, built the Sho Hondo, presented lectures that rattled the priesthood, and had to resign the presidency partially due to their criticisms. As you see, I also provided a "Criticism" subsection for both the 60s and 70s so editors can include material here. BrandenburgG (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not recommended on Misplaced Pages. Shii (tock) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, didn't know that. Let me think this through. In the meanwhile I added important information into the 1970s section re: relationship w NS.BrandenburgG (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for the most part I don't have a problem with the information added -- the article needs a lot of stylistic and formatting cleanup, but I recognize that SG's success is as notable as its controversies. Shii (tock) 16:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I integrated the "criticisms" sub subsections (1970s and 1980s) into the respective subsections as per not recommended on Misplaced Pages.

I did some more work on the 1970s sub sub section and also added information/citations to the split from NS subsection.l — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Problem?

There has been, for some time, a degree of consensus that the Beliefs and Practices subsection should reflect that the beliefs and practices that are unique to the SG, independent of its former association with Nichiren Shoshu; and that, that being the case, the BP subsection could be moved ahead of history.

But one editor adamantly refuses to let this happen. Despite being asked many times by many editors to discuss before reverting – which I believe is WP policy – Ubikwit refuses, and reverts what has been agreed upon by consensus.

No one is trying to deny the former relationship between the SG and NS; it’s mentioned in txhe new version of the BP subsection, and approximately 12 percent of the entire SG entry is taken up with it (yes, I did a word count!). But it is ridiculous to even suggest – let alone insist – that the SG’s identity is a dependent on its former association – which, btw, has not had for over 22 years now – with Nichiren Shoshu.

I wrote earlier: "Among the independent beliefs I (and others) have shown were not teachings of in any Nichiren sect extant in 1928 (when Makiguchi joined: the theory of value, including the necessity of social good; life force as Buddha; laity dong gongyo and proselytizing; the compilation of the writings of Nichiren; improvements in one's mundane activities as a religious goal and a necessary outcome of Buddhist practice; direct communion between laity and the efficacy of the Gohonzon with no form of clerical intercession unnecessary." These are why SG practices Nichiren Buddhism – the mechanics of which could have been gotten from any sect, or none.

There has been no response here to this, no contradiction, but Ubikwit has reverted the changes twice in the last week. Last time, he sent me a threat on my talk page to never do it again – I suppose as a prerequisite to reporting me if I make any more changes. Of course I am going to; but must this battle be fought forever?

Suggestions, please. Or, tell me if I’m wrong and this isn’t a problem. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. SGI is a Nichiren Shoshu offshoot and its beliefs and practices are, what is Nichiren Buddhism concerned, quite strongly linked to essential Nichiren Shohsu beliefs. Some sources however indicate even a shift on matters like the Dai-Gohonzon, at any rate there is not even a single source that could sum up what SGI’s beliefs are, no firm document or institution, board etc one could rely on. The beliefs and practices section also lacks the issue on “Guidance” or “encouragement” that I brought up earlier on. Even though I refuse to edit the article to any great extent nobody can tell me that this is not a major issue in SGI – I have been there. Also just like many more organisations within Nichiren Buddhism it would by all means be correct to say that SGI is Nichiren Buddhsim based or derived from Nichiren Buddhism. SGI has added certain issues to its agenda that make it unique i.e. so called “value creation” the unique interpretation of master(mentor)/disciple. Nichiren Buddhism has one stable tradition – the one of schisms with somebody walking off saying that they have found the truth and are the next best thing since the invention of sliced bread. Certain issues unite almost all Nichiren Buddhists, other issues differentiate and divide them and some issues bring them to the fringe. I have witnessed, practised and learned about Nichiren Buddhism for almost 30 years now. SGI is moving into its own direction. If all elements of its teachings are put into a balance then the amount of those elements that differentiate it from other Nichiren Buddhists and Buddhists as a whole are gaining momentum – this should be considered and the reader should be made aware of that. There is nothing wrong in that but it should be noted. Elsewhere on the Web some refer to SGI practising Ikedaism – like it or not – at the moment, in the West at least, an issues discussed, in forums, the term will make its way into literature at some point. Also on a more general note there do exist some guidelines and suggestions on how to structure articles dealing on religion. Having said that the fierceness in which some SGI adherents fight their cause here astonishes and disgusts me at the same time – it is all documented guys. Please could some admin look out for sock puppets? This includes the article on Ikeda. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're kind of factually wrong - about what the SG believes, and about sources that tell us what the SG believes. I posteda launfry list twice in the last week or so. Don't feel inclined to do iit again - scroll up a little and read. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just speaking in general, as someone who has more experience with religion in general than SG or Nichiren Buddhism in particular, I found it all but impossible to believe that after only 20 or so years any group would become so different that its beliefs would no longer be more or less the same as the group it only spun out from in the lifetime of most members. I am aware of no such schismatic groups which do become distinct entities that quickly. The central issues are more or less what the core tenets are - if they are fundamentally the same, then the group is reasonably still one that can be said to be "based" on the previous group it spun out from. Please be so good as to point out exactly where the core tenets are both identified and specifically indicated as being differentiated in the sections above, because, as a bit of a newcomer to this discussion, having made a cursory review, I don't see it. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCarter, you put your finger on the dilemma exactly. Two radically different organizations in esprit. Practice looks the same on the surface but radically different in spirit. Think of a tumultuous marriage in which the couple stays together for a variety of reasons but the divorce is inevitable and desirable. From what I gather the main editors of this article consist of a few SGI members, a former but very disillusioned SGI member, and a few scholars of Buddhism who look at the discussion through their own lenses. I haven't seen a Shoshu editor since I've been active. I think a Shoshu editor, however, would agree with the bad marriage analogy. Of course the SGI and NS editors would quarrel who is right, the husband or wife, but would both agree that the divorce is better than the bad marriage.

I have to vehemently disagree with Catflap08 that SGI is an offshoot of the SG. Makiguchi's journey started with his theory of value creation. He met a fellow principal who introduced him to a very unique NS priest--one who had left the temple to establish an independent office at Tokyo University. Makiguchi chose to merge the study of the Lotus Sutra with his Value Creation study group rather than join a temple lay group. There was an association--but always guarded and uneasy. As you know, there was a terrible split during the war which resulted in Makiguchi and Toda's jailing.

While in prison Toda had two deep spiritual awakenings that modernized such concepts of Buddha, enlightenment, the Lotus Sutra, and the Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Ikeda also draws on exttensive readings of Western and Chinese classics. I am not here to discuss right or wrong theology. But the SG draws on Value Creation, Nichiren Buddhism, Toda's enlightenment, and Ikeda's studies.

From 1951 to 1991 there was all type of drama: good relations, bad relations, maneuvering on both sides, adaptations. During these years it was also unclear who was the dog and who was the tail. It was Toda who revitalized the practice of shakubuku and formatted Gongyo (daily prayers). Similarities in the practice, yes. But radically different approaches to inherent understanding of the practice.

Up above Daviler has a very good list of differences. I'd like to add to them tomorrow.

BrandenburgG (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do these quotes from Makiguchi sound like Nichiren Shoshu? I don't think so.

From "Education For Creative Living" [Soka Kyoiku Gakku Taikei}, published November 18, 1930. Tranlated by Alfred Birnbaumand and Edited by Dayle M Bethel, published 1989 by the Soka Gakkai. Additional material is from "Tsunesaburo Makiguchi's View of Religion" Koichi Miyata, Soka University -The Journal of Oriental Studies Vol. 5, 1995

"Belief can be a dangerous thing, and often it is hard to say which is more detrimental, religion or science. Ultimately, though, neither should be followed blindly. For either to lay claim to truth, the order within the universe must coincide with the natural laws science arrives at from the opposite direction, via inductive experimentation." (Education for Creative Living, p.,39)

"The tendency to accept blindly the views of some authority or other, even about the most crucial matters affecting our lives, is widespread. No matter how intelligent we might be otherwise, when we are confronted by things that we do not understand or that are difficult to interpret, we do not attempt to think them through ourselves but blindly accept the views of our seniors or others who seem to speak with authority."( Education for Creative Living, p. 40)

"Cooperative living can develop only as individual persons become able to see their own weaknesses and strengths as well as the strengths and weaknesses of others…If education is to transform those who see life as a struggle to get ahead of others into persons who appreciate and value the rewards of cooperative living, it must raise social consciousness by helping students to know themselves through comparison with others" "(Education for Creative Living, p. 43)

"Human dignity arises from value creation…Everyone has to play his or her own role in the workplace of humanity in order to create values to meet the inexhaustible demands of living."(Education for Creative Living, p. 54)

"...It is written that Shakyamuni said "Heed the Law, not persons". This is the greatest guidance that Buddhism has to offer to the advancement of humankind. Here we are shown the way up from dependence to true freedom, from living in obedience to charismatic power figures to living in unison with the universal order…To follow blindly the will of others or even of oneself is a form of personality worship. We are self-sold into bondage…There is no chance to rise above the life of person dependence…The devotee of a personality cult has not the least inclination to assume an objective scientific stance…" (Education for Creative Living, p. 84-85)

Makiguchi on the three proofs:

"The combination of these three is the essential condition for making doctrinal arguments. In other words, one cannot make a valid argument in Buddhism unless reasoning, documentary proof, and actual fact all coincide "( The Journal of Oriental Studies vol. 5, p. 359).

Makiguchi on why the Lotus Sutra is compatible with Science

…When I encountered the Lotus Sutra, however, I was surprised to find something completely different from religions and morality that I had been learning about until then. This teaching has no contradictions and is the basic scientific and philosophical principles that underlie the experiences of daily life…(The Journal of Oriental Studies vol. 8, p. 405)."

Makiguchi on why Nichiren's Gohonzon is compatible with Science

"Non-Buddhist teachings, and even some schools within Buddhism that never moved beyond the sutras taught during the forty-plus years before the Lotus Sutra was expounded, have for their object of worship a concrete object that is considered the embodiment of a deity or a Buddha. Since the image of the object as deity or Buddha is a mental construction by those individuals who revere it, it is very different from the truths and principals that are the object and goal of science. Because of that difference, such religions are contrary to science."( The Journal of Oriental Studies vol 5, 359)

Makiguchi on the Real-Life experiment called the Soka Gakkai

"It was our intention to prove scientifically that the Mystic Law, the ultimate teaching of Buddhism, is the necessary law of life for all people. Now, the accumulation of positive and negative proof (i.e., effects of happiness and misfortune), has shown that the Daishonin's Buddhism is not merely true as an abstract philosophical concept, but constitutes the limitless wellspring of life force that is manifested in our actual lives". (The Journal of Oriental Studies vol. 10, p. 132).

Makiguchi's Scathing criticism of Nichiren Shoshu

"Pardon me for saying so, but I deplore the fact that the majority of priests, though they explain Buddhism in the name of the Daishonin's sacred teachings from Gosho and sutra, do not demonstrate it by showing actual proof. ". (The Journal of Oriental Studies. vol. 10, p. 153).

"We must distinguish between believers and practitioners. A person will surely gain benefit simply by having faith and offering prayers, but this alone does not qualify as bodhisattva practice. There can be no such thing as an egoistic Buddha who only seeks benefit for himself and does not share it with others. Unless one undertakes bodhisattva practice, one cannot become a Buddha. In other words, a true believer and true practitioner is one who serves others in the spirit of a parent….Thus we must ask, "Who among the traditional lay believers of Nichiren Shoshu has faced the three obstacles and four devils?" are not those who give guidance to others without themselves facing devils "agents of hell who cause people to fall into the evil paths? (The Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 10, p. 151)Ltdan43 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That wall of text of quotes and the like is meaningless when taken out of context.

I suggest that you consider the statements against the background of Makiguchi and Toda having converted to Nichiren Shoshu in 1928, two years before the first book you reference was published.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: Sorry, you deserve a better answer than I gave yesterday. There are no doctrines - none - that the SG believes that originated with Nichiren Shoshu. There are many doctrines that originated with Shayamuni, T'ien T'ai and Nichiren - oneness of person and law, oneness of self and environment, ichinen sanzen, et. al. - that the SG believes and NS also affirms; but that does not make them NS property. The recitation of the siutra and chanting daimoku - not invented by NS, not NS property. Things NS did originate - Dai Gohonzon, transfer of Gohonzon power via virtue of High priest, inherent virtue of priests - the SG does not believe. OTOH, many things the SG does believe were indeed originated by the SG independent of NS - as I have summarized above. John Carter: the issue os not whethher or not the SG has developed ideas since the split, but whether the SG has been developing its own ideas all along. If you read the History, you will see that, from the time of Makiguchi, there was one conflict after another between SG and NS, mainly dies to things the SG were doing or teaching which did not comport with NS doctrine. Moreover, the SG president very recently announced the purging from the official statement of belief as the central idea of NS - the Dai Gohonzon - and that propagation is a function of the improvement in peoples' lives - as opposed to mere proliferating. In doing so, he said, directly, that there is no relationship whatsoever between the SG and NS. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The first part of the above comment seems to be drawing a distinction between "Nichiren Buddhism" and its founders, and I don't know how many reference overview type sources, like we propose to be, often make such distinctions. Also, it seems maybe to be arguing from the SG position, and it isn't our place to say that something did not start with NB just because SGI says it didn't. Wbile SGI's beliefs are relevant to content relating to its beliefs as the primary subject, SGI's opinions do not take priority over those of the independent academic community. If the independent academic community says those beliefs or practices originated with Nichiren Buddhism, then we do too, whether SGI agrees with them or not.

Also, in your response to me, you seem to be placing altogether too much importance on one individual comment, which you yourself say is "very recent", and thus probably only really effects subsequent matters, and more or less ignoring or at least not addressing any other aspects. That very, very much resembles "cherry-picking" and possibly obfuscatory misrepresentation, and that isn't good. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ BrandenburgG “I have to vehemently disagree with Catflap08 that SGI is an offshoot of the SG” Pardon me???? Cetrainly its an offshoot! They are virtually the same. “Makiguchi's journey started with his theory of value creation. He met a fellow principal who introduced him to a very unique NS priest--one who had left the temple to establish an independent office at Tokyo University” You means the founder of Kokuchūkai? Those were the first lectures Makiguchi visited – not Nichiren Shohsu. And there is no doubt about it that SG or SGI move into their own direction – even the Buddhist service has lessened i.e. reciting the Lotos Sutra. Studying Ikeda is a prime focus by now. And surely SG is an offshoot of Nichiren Shoshu. It becomes a bit disturbing when a fact like that one is even negated. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 before you say things like “There are no doctrines - none - that the SG believes that originated with Nichiren Shoshu” you should get yourself familiar with Nichiren Shsoshu doctrine and the doctrines of other major Nichiren Buddhist schools (and not using SG material). You will quite soon will stumble on issues like Nichiren being regarded a Buddha and the issue of original enlightment and the Itchi/Shoretsu issue. You then might well think about rethinking that sentence. You will the also notice that since SGI focuses on the mentor/disciple issue it has not contributed to any great extent to those issues of debate within Nichiren Buddhism as a whole. But as I remember it was your niece who is an adherent of SG not yourself and maybe that’s why you rely on SG material solely.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a Jewish niece and a Catholic niece, so you're thinking of someone else :-). Anyway, by your argument, Nichiren Shu and Rissho Kosekai (sp?), and others, are all derivatives of NS. You are describing Buddhists concepts, not NS concepts. Yes, NS adopts them, but (as I said) they did not invemt them, and they do not own them. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 “Nichiren Shu and Rissho Kosekai (sp?), and others, are all derivatives of NS”. EEErrr nope there are not … they are really really not … nada … no never were never will be. Nichiren Shu is actually considered the oldest Nichiren Buddhist school. You might really expand your literature. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Catflap08, I know. Iw was making a point about your argument, to wit: if having something in common wioth NS practice makes SG derivative, the the other two are also derivative. Point: your argument does not make sense.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. --Catflap0Bethel et al8 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter: the problem is that there are indeed many academic sources that say the SG doctrines originated separate from Shoshu: Susumu, Hurst, et al. That this is ignored by other editors - or rather, that other editors who don't --Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)want the SG to be portrayed as independent attack these sources - does not diminish their validity, imho. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is simply factually wrong to say SGI’s views developed separately – core religious issues are Nichiren Shoshu by origin, others are indeed more or less new SGI teachings. Core issue would be the importance given to study Ikeda’s writings. What’s wrong in saying that? Its obvious. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

BrandenburgG

Would you please slow down in your number of edits? With all due respect any other editor’s contribution is made impossible. If the article is closed down nobody will gain anything. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand and apologize. I had a few days off and obsessed. Will slow down.

BrandenburgG (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently discussion regarding this article at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on Soka Gakkai page. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors should check it out. The discussion has become rater heated, and perhaps more opinions wo0uld help clear away some of the chafe (and chaffing).--Daveler16 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is the volume of editorial change and comments made by Davelar16 and BrandenbergG that is fraying the nerves. I think they have made valuable contributions thus far and hope they can continue to work with the editors.Ltdan43 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think the media in Japan and elsewhere have often not been fair and objective. This view has come to light by scholars who have not taken the word of the Japanese press and done their own research. Takesato Watanabe, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication Studies at Doshisha University examined these forces and states ten factors. Here are a few: “A power structure which derives legitimacy through preservation of the imperial system: The fabric of Japanese society is dominated by a tapestry of interwoven connections to the imperial system…The Soka Gakkai did not legitimate itself through such ties. “The scope and scale of the Soka Gakkai’s political influence. The Soka Gakkai is exceptional in that no other large Japanese religious organization engages in both social and political issues. Its history of defiance and autonomy. The Soka Gakkai began as an association of educators who were critical of the Japanese educational system—at a time designed to foster unquestioning subjects of the state.

“The uncompromising religious convictions of the Soka Gakkai and social disapproval of its initial period of aggressive proselytizing. 

“Media coverage of Soka Gakkai’s vast financial resources: The organization’s finances generate widespread suspicion in the public, which becomes another factor used by competing religious and political groups to criticize the Soka Gakkai. “The framework of social intolerance in Japan: A hierarchical social system not only demarcates a stratum for people to venerate and obey; it enables them to see those belonging to lower strata as inferior. In Japan this social psychology at times acts to segregate the Soka Gakkai and its members from the rest of society.” “The uncompromising religious convictions of the Soka Gakkai and social disapproval of its initial period of aggressive proselytizing. (Global Citizens, edited by David Machacek and Bryan Wilson, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 213–230)Ltdan43 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is pseudo-intellectual. You could use many of these points to denounce media coverage of Aum Shinrikyo. Shii (tock) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Ltdan43 Good grief you are citing Wilson. The same Wilson being sold in SGI book stores? Yes SGI has vast financial resources and at times I think they even reach into Misplaced Pages. SGI has issues and there is no denying in that. It simply has gone beyond the need of aggressively proselytizing … we will see what happens to the article once Ikeda passes and who splits off from who.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Major, long-term issues facing the article

Raised at ANI:

1. Are sources about Soka Gakkai International applicable to this article about Soka Gakkai? Should they become a different article? (Way back in the day, this article was originally titled Soka Gakkai International)
2. How to balance overly friendly academic sources with hostile newspaper sources
3. The use of the word "cult" and related classifications
4. How to shorten the article without removing vital facts

These are all resolvable issues.

I am particularly concerned by #2. Some academic sources can be overly friendly and distract from a serious outside, neutral portrayal of SG. We already had completely neutral sources in the article several months ago. I think the article should stick to the narrative set up by these, and this can help resolve #4 as well. Shii (tock) 03:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are simplifying the matter. Hostile newspaper articles remind me of SGI lingo, any article is branded as being published by tabloids. Stone and McLaughlin are not entirely friendly but blunt. The issue which concerns most is the article objective or is it becoming, yet again, promotional. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the ANI, the best thing I can do to support this article is to stay away for a while. I recognize my over-involvement and bias and I apologize. From time to time I might want to make a comment on the talk page but that's it for a month or two. Closing out, responding to Catflap's request on the ANI, I am an SGI member (obviously) but I cause a lot of ruckus there, too, because I speak up often and loudly. Unlike Catflap's experience, I never felt marginalized or mistreated and often what I said came to pass. I just have a tendency to be ahead of the curve, I guess.

At any rate, best of luck with the article.

BrandenburgG (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the signs of obsessing again. I think it is best if I stay away from posting on the talk page as well. See you in a month or two.

BrandenburgG (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@BrandenburgG Well I accept your decision. For your information during my time in SGI I never felt marginalised or mistreated, but I do not like being lied to in a systematic way, I too was outspoken … and still am. That’s the reason why to this day I get irritated if people press their religious beliefs on others or withhold information. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Shii. The Beliefs and Practices section can easily be shortened, and I think the "Priesthood" (there are 3 or 4 now, I think) can be shortened. But - guidelines. The notion of SG independent doctrine is as real to me as, evidently, the notion of its derivation is to others. On the ANI page I asked that if someone thinks it is derivative, they, too, should have to do their research and find neutral sources that say so - hopefully written sometime later than the 60s. Is that unreasonable? Also, is seems quite reasonable to me that an article entitled "Soka Gakkai" should be about the Soka Gakkai, and not about "The Soka Gakkai Through The Lens of Nichiren Shoshu". Is thst unreasonable?

And btw, do you anticipate there will be some comment on the ANI page from some higher-up? Is there any reaosn to continue checking there? bThanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted before, SG does have a lot of innovation in its teachings that has nothing to do with being a former hokkeko. I think it is completely reasonable that this page should describe SG doctrine first, and its relationship to Shoshu from a historical perspective primarily. I also think it is sensible that the Beliefs and Practices section should come first, but rather than edit warring over that, I would like to clean it up first so that it is obvious that it contains useful information. Shii (tock) 17:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a heads up - I've tried cleaning it up several times, and that's one of the things that has been quickly reverted with no discussion. I'll try again. Some criticism of style, if warranted, would be welcome, but just dumping it would not. A few things can go, but I think there does need to be a short mention of SG discussion meetings. I'll keep it short. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

SGI-USA has different teachings from SG Japan

I ask some editor to confirm that there is zero overlap between this list of Japanese key concepts and this American list of key concepts, except for the obvious one of "value creation" (soka).

I would like to construct a B&P section based on SG Japan's key concepts, but I can't do that very easily if the American ones are totally different. This is especially aggravating because it means we might need to make a separate article for SGI. Shii (tock) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there sufficient reliable source to establish separate notability of the topics? Also, I guess, what related topics are there sufficient sources to establish notability for? Perhaps part of the problem is trying to jam too much into too little article space. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Probably better to start shrinking the article. Shii (tock) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that’s going to be interesting to see in what point the teachings are different :-)--Catflap08 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ouch, I'm sorry but I don't have time to translate that stuff. I have two small children and work is busy. Hopefully Shii or someone else can translate it in the interim. Try google translate, for the time being...--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ask for a translation, just to point out that the lack of overlap makes using primary sources problematic Shii (tock) 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Before the issue explodes on the practices and beliefs issue it might be a good idea to get someone neutral on board experienced in editing and researching religious issues – should be possible or not? For me that lack of overlap is secondary as it is more difficult to obtain any sort of manifesto or dogma which states what SG/SGI believes in … ab bit of Nichiren Shoshu dogma … bit of Master (Mentor)/disciple … even the religious practice experienced a kind of diet. There is not all that much that SGI published on issues like original enlightment and the general nuts and bolts on issues typical for Nichiren Buddhist to be discussing. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved the long list of academic sources to a talk space page, Talk:Soka Gakkai/Sources Shii (tock) 00:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Should we put the address in the Talk page banner so people can find it? Anyway, this has always been one of the strengths of this article, ever since the contributions from JALockhart. Maybe we should ask if we could include his annotations to some of the sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Article has now shrunk from 189KiB to 156KiB, and that was only by removing extremely essay-like and somewhat POV material. Shii (tock) 00:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any different beliefs in SGI-USA. Could you be thinking of customs, maybe language? Shii, what gave you rteason to think there is separate doctrine?--Daveler16 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the two links to SG-Japan and SGI-USA websites I provided at the top of this page. American one has "diversity", "compassion" or "interconnectedness"; Japanese one has "eternal 5 principles" (formerly "eternal 3 principles"), "Buddha-dharma dialogue" and "double way of practice and study". There is no overlap between them! Shii (tock) 00:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My view on this is that it's probably a result of fine tuning the message to the cultural context. E.g. nobody who grew up in Japan will have the slightest problem with the "interconnectedness" part. They are using what works in two very different societies. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that sounds a bit farfetched to me for SGI-USA having fundamentally different concepts (doctrine if there is one) than the parent organisation. Never heard of that before, except some adherents blaming all negative aspects to SG Japan. SGI is not a franchise company and except for respective bylaws by which national organisations run the fundamental beliefs are the same just as the veneration for its presidents. So far even SG’s own academic institutions have not contributed to any great extent to the field of Buddhist Studies, which does come a bit as a surprise. This may be due to a claim on orthodoxy that it, SG/SGI, has adopted form its former parent sect. Also it would be helpful to insert issues on original englightment or the position held on the Dai Gohonzon. A description of the daily practice (which has undergone some changes in the past 25 years) would also be helpful as compared to many other Nichiren schools and organisations the recitation of the Lotos Sutra seems to be given less weight. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii - I looked at the two websites. In the English one, at least, the differences you mention are under "pronciples", not "concepts", and are, I think, in place due to the international nature og SGI, as opposed to SG. The concepts listed below that are titled "Buddhist" concepts. If there are differences in those, that is what you want to address, I think. Keep in mind the difference between theology, or doctrinbe, and the application of the theology. My impression is that Ubijwit and Catflap want to focus on theology, while I would be more than happy to focus on the application, i.e., not so much that SG chants daimoku, but what is expected to happen when they chant daimoku. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to focus on application, but before we can do that we need to figure out what the application is. Shii (tock) 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The application? Ah, you want to include so called “experiences”? --Catflap08 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "experience" as much as the reasons SG teaches what it teaches. I believe (no time to look it up right now) Susumu made the point that other sects teach one can attain Buddhahood in this lifetime, but the SG adds that this must manifest in positive, mundane individual results, and social action. Also, the SG just changed its canon to specify that "world wide propagation" must occur "through individuals achieving their human revolution" - meaning, I guess, it's not mere proliferation but proliferation coinciding with tangible effects. Anyhow, that's what I mean by "application" - what it is that animates the practice. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me start all over again. A belief and practice(s) section should inform the reader about what SGIists belive in and how they practice their faith. Just like in many other articles related to Nichiren Buddhist schools the practice could easily and shortly be explained … they chant NMRK, they recite the verses number such and such, silent prayers, Gohonzon etc and so forth. Any Holidays? Any festivities? The belief section should inform the uninformed reader just as much as the informed reader issues as I said original enlightment, Nichiren as a Buddha (big difference to most Nichiren Buddhist Schools – stems from Nichiren Shoshu), Shoretsu lineage or Itchi Lineage, what amout of the Fuji Monryu is in SGI what is not, the inner and outer gate issue and so forth.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "this-worldly orientation" of all Buddhists sects throughout the history of the religion, with the possible exception of some Pure Land schools, would be well known to the student of Buddhism. The SG does not, therefore, differentiate itself from anyone by making statements that are simply a matter of articulating a position regarding an interpretation of doctrine that has been common in Buddhism with relation to concepts such as karma and the like for well over a thousand years, as demonstrated by this, for example.

Until you exapnd your horizons beyond the narrow confines of the Soka Gakkai and even Nichirenshu, your comprehension of Buddhism will remain limited, and adversely impact your ability to contribute to articles on related topics here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Ubikwit I would be already happy if there would be some differentiation if and to what extent SGI holds beliefs of the Fuji Monryu lineage within Nichiren Buddhism. There are two major fractions within Nichiren Buddhism the Koizumi Kuonji wich is basically Nichiren Shu where Tendai origins can still be traced and the Taisekiji lineage which SGI still follows. Even though much on the surface differences SGI from the Taisekiji school of thought they still have a lot in common. With all due respect some SGI affiliated editors do not even know some key issues within Nichiren Buddhsim which is really frustrating to watch. Even Nichiren Shoshu clerics would know how to explain their position within Nichiren Buddhism and Buddhism in general. The average SGIists would grasp for breath and say “Global citizenship” and “human revolution”. The article does not go beyond what one could read in a glossy magazine or book sold in SGI bookshops and in Misplaced Pages some would like to see information beyond that.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: That's interesting, and of course I'd basically have to agree about SG/SGI. I find it hard to believe that Daveler16 is still trying to refer to SG as a Buddhist "sect".

With regard to the Nichiren schools, I have to plead ignorance there. I haven't gotten around to studying Nichirenshu in detail, but I do know the basics.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Ubikwit The Nichiren Shu today is a school within Nichiren Buddhsim. Older texts at times refer to Nichiren Buddhism as Nichiren Shu. I believe that the Japanese term for Nichiren Buddhism is “Hokke-kei Bukkyo” . --Catflap08 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I havn’t participated here for several months, but I have been dropping in from time to time. I want to first offer my appreciation to the editors for their hard work and for the changes made that concerned me when I first posted on this talk page. Although I have a family member (neice) who is an SGI member, I am not. I am now noticing a lot of tension among the editors and I wish everyone would take a deep breath, respect each other, and proceed according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Again, I applaud the changes made thus far!WmSimpson (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: a very respected scholar of Buddhism (a former Zen monk, actually) has put his finger on the problem, I think. (He does not condemn the SG, btw, so you would reject him as a source). He notes that neighbors tried to stop construction of and SGI center on the grounds that it wasn't hosting what the neighbors considered religious services and says: "A new paradigm always looks unfamiliar. He (the neighborhood spokesperson) might have had a harder time mustering opposition to a Zen temple with its overtly religious architecture and shaven headed priests...The SGI has no dress code, no priests...It has preserved the substance of religious life and let the appearance of religion fall away...That an ordinary, educated person would think religious worship was something other than meeting to share such basic human concerns (i.e., what he calls "core life values" such as peace, health, friendship et al), to discuss how best to address them in ordinary daily life,,,says more about the limits of modern religious education than it does about the Soka Gakkai." In other words, trying to define the SG, or pigeonhole them, using txhe standards of clerical, ritualistic Buddhism, is inaccurate, and so unfair to WP readers. You mmay think I (and maybe others here) know nothing, but I think perhaps you ought to try at least peering outside the box once in a while. Then, aybe we can have actualy, constructive conversations.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 Does that mean you cannot describe the practice? Which parts of the Lotos Sutra are recited and why? Me and nobody else says that you ARE SGI, but the fundamental beliefs must be described somewhere. There must be a reason for why you are doing what you are doing. There must be somebody who gives a guideline on the daily practice, what goes into the Liturgy book, what not, and why?? I mean form all editors involved I thought the ones who are in SGI would be able describe what SGI is – what is its doctrine. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@ @Daveler16: I'm afraid that such anecdotes don't impress me much.

What you have described in terms of religious practice is what normal people would describe as community in civil society.

While there is no doubt that a sense of community is breaking down in many countries that are democratic and can be said to be premised on the concept of civil society, trying to ascribe things like holding meetings as a religious practice itself is simply devoid of the amount of meaning that would be required to differentiate such practice as religious, because there is nothing there in terms of something that could be defined as a religious pursuit.

I'd prefer if we could stick to commenting on statements found in sources.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:06, 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Compromise. Take your Gongyo book (latest edition) and sum up what it states. At least we would know what the current daily practice consists of. Even in articles on Nichiren Shohsu or Nichiren Shu there is a short description of that.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: "I'm afraid that such anecdotes don't impress me much." That's exactly my point.

Catflap08: Gongyo book! Good idea! There will be new ones soon reflecting the change in doctrine announced late last year, so as soon as I get one, sure. Meanwhile, you are still, I think, concentrating on the mechanics of practice, when the point of thew SG, it appears, is the reason for the practice. My new word is "animation" - what animates the mechanics? To cite an inexact religious analogy: Jesus is venerated in Islam and Christianity - but what animates that veneration is different in each faith, and it would be quite misleading to say "like Christians, Muslims respect Jesus", and leave it at that. That statement may accurately describes a formality - but the reason for the formality is so different between Christianity and Islam that emphasizing the formality over the reason would be misleading and a disservice to readers. So: the SG's regard for the Lotus Sutra (for instance) differs vastly from that of Nichiren Shu, and even (I think) from that of Nichiren Shoshu. That's one thing. As nto where it is written down, there is a booklet for new members outlining beliefs. If I were to use it as a source, would there not be a firefight over "self promotion"> --Daveler16 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16, did you or the pioneer members of the "the Jewel of Buddhist Democracy" vote on the changes to SGI doctrine? What will you do when SGI identifies the Original Eternal Buddha as Shakyamuni Buddha instead of Nichiren? Will you proclaim that "I too always thus believed"? The Doctrines of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren are eternal and unchanging, not those of the Soka Gakkai. 2602:306:BCB1:959:8C85:A2A5:5E9F:C353 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 2/8/2015

arbitrary break

@Daveler16: The issue about the Gongyo book is not such a great deal, as it is the most obvious source to describe the daily practice. In the articles on Nichiren Shu and Nichiren Shoshu the respective liturgy is reflected in the article. Do not introduce new words – it does not lead to anything. The article is also not about Muslims or Christians. To focus what is missing in the article is most important. So if there have been recent changes in doctrine (again?) maybe that source can serve as a basis to describe the fundamental beliefs. In terms of Lotus Sutra I would not venture out too far. The differences towards the Sutra will be minimal when it comes to Nichiren Shoshu and even Nichiren Shu. In the latter the Sutra is fundamental even in daily practice. Common to all Nichiren Schools IS the veneration of the Sutra what differentiates them majorly is how Nichirens teachings ON the Sutra are interpreted and what position Nichiren holds. So before comparing SG to anyone else it might be more useful to describe what SG-teachings are about. That this all does not become self-promotion is a task SG/SGI affiliated editors have to look out for. Please note WP:NOTPROMOTION.--Catflap08 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Catflap about introducing new words. The word "animate" may help things make sense to you, but if sources don't discuss that concept in context or it isn't readily apparent, then it would probably become a point of contention. The content policies related to using primary sources, and WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE, etc., have been discussed here on more than one occasion, but it still seems that there is a lack of understanding.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Animate" is my word, meant just for the Talk page and not the article. Won't use it if it's confusing. My point remains the same, though: it is the reasons for practicing, the expected results, the application, that is vital, and that distinguishes one sect from another. (And btw, I'm not sure one can argue simultaneously that the SG needs to include its view of the Lotus Sutra, and that the SG is not a Buddhist sect.)

Should there be sub sections of the Three Great Secret Laws and the Three Treasures? Maybe those belong, not in Beliefs, but in the History sections concerning the relationship with Taisekiji? There are substantial differences between the two sects concerning those concepts.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16The respected results are actually secondary and if mentioned belong to the section on beliefs – as this is what it boils down to. This is actually a great difference to other Nichiren sects – the importance given to worldly “benefits”. I see no contradiction on the Lotus Sutra issue as you will, as an SG adherent, recite a small section of it each day. SG/SGI is no Buddhist sect per self-definition it is a lay Buddhist organisation. The term “sect” is used for various schools of Buddhism, hence also within Nichiren Buddhism. I believe that discussion came up a while back and if the Lotus Sutra does not play such an important role anymore that would surely be interesting to know, as that’s what is most fundamental to all Nichiren Buddhist sects (schools) and organisations. There actually is an article on the Three Jewels which is, apart from some minor differences, more or less sums up most issues. Please not that Nichiren Shoshu’s definition is somewhat peculiar even within major schools of Nichiren Buddhism. Again at this point SG is not a sect otherwise its name more likely would be Soka Gakkai Shu or the like. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That results don't matter is, perhaps, what you believe, or maybe even what other sects believe. The section we are discussing, however, is what the SG believes.

You know the issue of "Is it a religion?" has actually been litigated, right? If not, . Note: "The thick zoning file on the case includes a letter from the Internal Revenue Service, saying the group is exempt from federal income tax because it is 'organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes.'" There was no follow up story that I can find, but we know that the center was built, so obviously the SGI won and the court found that it is, in fact, a religion. Plus, found this recently in A New Handbook of Living Religions (Ed. John R. Hinnells, article by David Reid): SG was affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu but independently formed and (to your point above) “Through its network of neighborhood groups, however, Soka Gakkai has brought help to millions of people more concerned about personal problems than about abstract questions of principle and authority.” (both on p 497)

I know those sources will be called "advocacy" and "self promotion" because they contradict the narrative some want to establish, but the point is that narrative is wrong.

Daveler16 Well I cannot speak for other sects maybe their results are of a less material kind at any rate that is not so much an issue as it’s not an issue in most articles on religion. There are about as many reason for practising just any faith as there are believers. All I, and I guess Ubikwit, were discussing is for the article to be more concrete on what SGI’s doctrine IS, what its religious daily practice IS, its stand and position on issues being key elements to Nichiren Buddhism. Its position within the Fuji lineage, Nichiren Buddhsim and Buddhism in general. I have no idea what issues about Zen clerics and tax issues have to do with it - maybe in another section. I somehow think this talk leads nowhere. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 What is the question? The group is a religious corporation in Japan, too, but it is not a sect of Buddhism.

Where do you plan to integrate the sources? That is the first consideration. DO they have DUE WEIGHT??

This is an encyclopedia site, not a blog, so the last article you mention (David Reid), at any rate, doesn't look like it is an encyclopedic reference. To what section of the article do you think it relates?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Ubikwit: I wonder who, in the real world, would witness SG members ritually reciting parts of the Lotus Sutra (in an ancient language), chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra over and over again, doing all this in scheduled group services as well as individually, studying the writings of Nichiren, studying commentaries on the Lotus Sutra, and burning incense and candles at an altar containing a mandala the depicts a an event in the Lotus Sutra - who would witness all that and conclude "This is not a Buddhist religi0us sect"??

Beliefs and Practices is the section I'm discussing. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

The Reid stuff (are you calling it a "blog"? It's from a 900 page encyclopedia) belongs in Beliefs and Practices - if it is necessary fro balance. I think, though, that part of the readability problem with the article is that so much of it is "dueling sources": this guys says it's a cult, but we have to immediately include that this guy says it's not; Makiguchi was jailed for this reason, except someone says it was for that reason, etc. But with the exception of the first two paragraphs, I actually think the B&P section is okay in that regard - no dueling sources -- so I wouldn't want to introduce sources that aren't really needed at the moment. I brought Reid (and the Washington Post) up for the sake of discussion here. (though I do wonder what goes through someone's mind when they read that the IRS and a court say the SGI is a religious body, and the only response they can think of is "nonsense") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 For goodness sake as said before SG defines itself not as a Buddhist school nor a Buddhist sect. This is done neither by SG/SGI, nor outside observers, nor scholars in order to debase SG/SGI but as a matter to differentiate and systemise. SG/SGI is a lay Buddhist movement/organisation/new religion chanting and burning incense does not make it a sect or school. The term sect or school is normally used in reference to traditional schools – priests, doctrine, lay believers and so forth. Most and for all SG/SGI does not seem to define itself as a sect or school. It would be quite irritating if it would do so anyways as SG/SGI seems to condemn traditional schools anyway. For instance Honmon Butsuryū-shū is mostly referred to as a traditional school but since it (re)introduced priests only in the later course of its history it is also, depending on source, described as one of Japan’s new religious movements. No offence, but it might be a good idea to look beyond one's own nose (i.e. SG material) when discussing general issues. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Again: a cursory glance at the first 2 columns of the first page of the latest Living Buddhism (SGI-USA study mag), under the title "Nichiren Buddhism and the SGI (1): "Why practice Nichiren Buddhism?" (2); "the purpose of Buddhism is..." (3); "through our practice of Nichiren Buddhism...(4); "We practice Nichiren Buddhism primarily..." (5) Later it refers to SGI as "our lay Buddhist organization". How does one conclude that SGI does not consider itself as a Buddhist school or sect? Unless you are going to define religion as "something with a clergy", which I think is inaccurate.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 Nobody denies that SGIists practise a religion – yes it is a practise based on Nichiren Buddhism, but SGI is no school or sect. SG/SGI itself does not describe itself as a sect or school that in Japanes would be a SHU. Doing so does not mean it’s not part of Nichiren Buddhism. Your conclusions are wrong. SG/SGI is not the only religious organisation that does not want to be characterised by those standards. Its ab it confusing that you want terms to be used that SG/SGI actually in many ways condemns. These definitions are not set by me. If this was an article about a certain kind of yellow you could have all sorts of definitions and comments what makes that colour so pretty, others would just be interested what the RGB-code is. In other words the article lacks the RGB code. As said before – this discussion leads nowhere. Use your sandbox rewrite what you think should be rewritten and ask somebody neutral (and knowledgeable) within Misplaced Pages to have a look at it.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is like a broken record. NPOV means that the mainstream point of view is given prominence in the article, and other pov's according to due weight. I don't know of a single RS holding that anyone in Japan considers SG to be a Buddhist sect; it is a Buddhist-influenced NRM, derived mostly from Nichiren Buddhism, to which its founders converted in 1928, two years before former the precursor to SG. SG remained under the umbrella of Niuchiren Shoshu until the split of 1991, after about 60 years as a Hokkeko --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't think one editor does not decide what the "mainstream POV" is. I think this discussion is for your benefit: rather than just reverting what you don't like, you hgave a chance to show us the sources you have to override Hurst, Seagar, Metraux, Dobbelare, Susumu and others. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: We have spend months discussing this issues, starting with the assertion related to sect/NRM in the lead, and now that we have gone through the article to a substantial degree, you appear to be intent on simply starting over at the top again as if the discussions never happened.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dobbelaere is hardly a neutral source, the director of the Toda Institute, Olivier Urbain, having translated his book Soka Gakkai by Karel Dobbelaere & Olivier Urbain. 2602:306:BCB1:959:8C85:A2A5:5E9F:C353 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 2/8/2015

Some in Japan refer to the Soka Gakkai as The Ikeda Sect and here, a subset is known as The Ikeda Wisdom Academy. 2602:306:BCB1:959:8C85:A2A5:5E9F:C353 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 2/8/2015

Minor change, suggested change

I think shorter sub sections are needed on the Talk Page. I gets kind of hard to follow.

Anyway: I re-worded the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph in Beliefs and Practices - chnaged :believes in" to "teaches" which, I think, makes it less promotional.

Shii - while you are paring down, please consider that the first 2 paragraphs in this section are unnecessary. The 3rd P goes directly to what the SG believes and practices, rather than detouring through history like the first P. All that is covered already (there are about 1300 words on the priesthood throughout the SG article. The 2nd P deals with practices-in-common, which is covered in thew aforementioned 3rd P. So getting rid of the first 2 paragraphs would not only make it shorter, but it would make it clearer and easier to follow. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Does your one word response indicate that you have no real argument? If you do have a real argument, perhaps stating it woud make you appear less of an advocate for trashing the SG.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, come to think of it, isn't that response an indication that you're doing original research? Something is "nonsense" because you say it is, and there's really no source to back it up?--Daveler16 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 Nonsense might be in reference to restructuring the talk page. The talk page is a dynamic discussion, sub-sections are added by editors themselves. The talk section is, in this case, regularly achieved as well. If you want to restructure parts of the article and not sure about it you might use the sandbox tool: WP:SB. It’s up to you who you might consult for taking a look at it. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Restructure the Talk page? I just suggested more frequent breaks. For instance, I made on (this one) when bringing up a subject that was not previously discussed in the existing sub section - rather than have 2 or 3 different topics going on in one sub section. But at any rate, it's hard to know what "nonsense" means if al that is said is "nonsense". But I doubt ot was related to the flow f the Talk page.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Daveler16 (talk · contribs) is just pretending to have forgotten all of the past discussion about context, history, etc., related to the first two paragraphs of the B&P section. A one word response is adequate.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but "all of the past discussion about context, history, etc., related to the first two paragraphs" was pretty much about fixing the B&P section so that it could lead off the article. That that is "nonsense" is you POV, and what I mean by your treating ths as your own original research. Rather than follow the latest credible sources, nyou insist that yourt POV repvails. Diagreeing is not "nonsense" - it's what the Talk {age os for, I believe.

Catflap08: no need to flesh out my ideas in the Sandbox. As noted, they have been discussed here - between you, me and at least4 others I can think of -- and have been made to the article at least 3 (probably actually 4 or 5) times - and each time reverted by someone who did not discuss it beforehand. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 Using the sandbox is a proper and often used tool. We have discussed certain issues and so far you provided no answers on issues relating to the article, nor any suggestions. The only issues that you did bring up were Zen related neighbourhood and tax issues that on the B&P section seem to be of no help. No need to discuss anything further as there is nothing to discuss about. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Gymnastic formations V2

The use of a photo of a gymnastic formation as an example of "peace activities" is rather jarring to me. I am aware that North Korea advertises their mass gymnastics as messages of peace, but I am not aware of any other group that does to. Is this really SGI practice? If so I feel like it should be mentioned in the text of the article. Otherwise the photo is not pertinent to the section and has no pedagogical value. Shii (tock) 07:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The gymnastic formation is one of the cultural performance that is used by SGI to promote "peace activities". The other cultural performance used by SGI to promote peace activities are participating in the countries' national day parade performances, performing concert, cultural dance performance and many other cultural performances to celebrate diversities.

Below is the link for your references.

http://www.academia.edu/5285382/The_nationalization_of_religion_Cultural_performances_and_the_youth_of_Soka_Singapore

You can find the relevance information from the research paper.

Kelvintjy (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have included that paper. Shii (tock) 08:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Since Catflap08 had post a notice in the Reliable Source noticeboard and wanted to threatened with a topic ban again in future, I feel the need to resurrect this discussion started by Shii. When I post the link in the talk page last year, there is not much objection towards the research paper and it is Shii who put it into the main article. Kelvintjy (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And whats your problem now? I got a third opinion thats all.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) This was my request --Catflap08 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as baffling is a picture of a Nichiren Shoshu temple in the Soka Gakkai entry. What is the purpose of that? --Daveler16 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Murata reference

Since there was some dispute about the Murata references I included the quotes from page 96-97.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Please note; --Catflap08 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, thanks for adding that, but the links you added don't work and they don't have any bibliographic information. Since Google Books is only snippet view, I think we should forget about trying to display pages and just repeat the previous cite, which was <ref name=murata />{{rp|96–97}}. Although there seems to be problems with the ISBN in that cite not working properly either. (Strike that, it does work at WorldCat, just not at Google.)

Also, with the entire passage quoted at Resource Request, it now looks like the text of our article goes beyond the book, embellishing several details. The English translation of the book says "religion", not "cult", and never uses words "helped", establish" or "reputation". I don't have time to do it now, but I think this passage needs to be rewritten to agree with what the book says. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The clipping does not always work with me either. At any rate this was not about cult or not cult but about the fact that the quote exists or not.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following the article very closely, but now I see that there has been a lot of discussion of this incident recently. It's hard to follow because it has been taking place across three articles (SG, Ikeda, Toda). Thanks to your question at Resource Request and your comment on the Ikdeda talk page, we now have the full text of the Murata and Montgomery sources. Thank you, now we know what we are talking about.

I see that a number of editors are suggesting that this incident should be removed completely from the Ikeda article. I don't think that's necessary. But I also see no need to give complete accounts of the same incident in three separate articles (SG, Ikeda, Toda). Since by far the most detailed and best sourced description of this incident is Tanuki Incident in the Toda article, what I would suggest is that we concentrate on improving that description and have one or two sentences in the SG and Ikeda articles, linking to the full description in the Toda article. (That would have the benefit of shortening the SG article, since editors at AN/I were complaining that it's too long.)

I also have one more suggestion -- to make this discussion easier to follow, we could re-factor it by gathering the full text of the sources in one page (perhaps a subpage off the Toda talk page). And also move all discussions of the incident from the three talk pages to that same talk page. And leave notices in the SG and Ikeda talk pages to make sure that people interested in this material can go there for an overview of the whole controversy and have a unified place to comment if they want to say something about it. Would that be OK? – Margin1522 (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the dispute on the Ikeda page I brought the issue to the attention of the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am finding it increasingly irritating to get hammered for introducing sources and verifying them in terms of content and existence. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Singapore Soka Association

Guys, I have request for AFD for Singapore Soka Association. The reasons can be found in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Singapore Soka Association. Kelvintjy (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Change to Proselytizing sun section

Catflap08: in a day or two I'll have a B&P re-write in the Sandbox for one and all to work on together.

Meanwhile, Shi: I intend to change the wording of the Proselytizing sun section. I want to include whaqt the reference to Montgomery actually says, to wit: "shakubuku" is not "forced conversion", and the past aggressive SG behavior was controversial, but common to new religions in Japan, and not much different than methods used by some religions in the West. The other footnote in that section is to "The OC Register" - no specific issue, article or page mentioned - and says merely that the SG still uses the word "shakubuku", which doesn't strike me as particularly edifying information anyway. So I want to remove that sentence.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use the literal translation of "shakubuku" as opposed to the many metaphorical translations that have come into being. Shii (tock) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 (talk · contribs) There is no need for a B&P rewrite, but of course you are free to sandbox all you like. That doesn't mean anyone is going to join you.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Buddhism articles
• Top-importance Buddhism articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics