Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Soka Gakkai. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Beliefs and practices first

In principle I'm not opposed to having this section first. But the way it is written now presumes that a lot of information has already been introduced. The first sentence is "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework as a hokkeko, a form of lay organization." None of that has been introduced yet. If we are going to go this way, I think we had better start with a summary of the basic tenets of Nichiren Buddhism and only then introduce what is specific to SG.
In fact, what I would like to suggest is factoring out both the history and B&P sections into separate articles. They both have more than enough material. They are also the sections that contain most of the contentious material. Having them in separate articles would make it easier to get this article into a more or less stable version. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Margin1522. I had re-written that paragraph once, but someone changed it back. I'll look at it again, unless you want to make the changes? I just moved the section as it was (after a few re-writes of sub sections).--Daveler16 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. As of now the intro doesn't follow at all. If it doesn't work out we can always rewind. In the meantime I think I'm going to try working on the main article on Nichiren Buddhism. It's got misspellings and grammar issues, and really gets into the sectarian weeds. As it stands it's pretty hard to summarize. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well. You didn't get a chance to rewrite that paragraph, did you? I must say, you've displayed admirable patience through all this. As for me I'll leave it for another day. Better not to write in anger. – Margin1522 (talk)

Easily fixed. I see that, once again, for the umpteenth time, a major change is made without discussing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I should mention again why B&P should lead off the article. As is known (maybe it's a sensitive subject on WP talk pages?) most professors and teachers do not allow their students to cite Wikipedia in research. And I can't imagine anyone but an academic being interested, first and foremost, in the SG history, ancient criticisms and esoteric disputes, anecdotes from 1951, etc. Yes, eventually, perhaps, a reader would want to know all this and that's why they have to be included; but it makes sense that the vast majority of people to use Wikipedia to learn about the SG are doing so because they are interested in its beliefs, or a child or spouse has started practicing (I believe there's an editor who came here precisely because of that?)and they want to know what it is they're practicing. Why not make it easier for most of the people who are reading? If there has been research into readership, and I'm wring, then I apologize, and okay, bury B&P. But please, let's discuss it first.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We already had a discussion about this and I believe Ubikwit is in the minority. There is no clear format among religion articles, for example, Bahá'í Faith and Christian Science have beliefs sections first, while Scientology has it otherwise. In the SG article there is a good argument that SG beliefs are unfamiliar enough that they can be explained first and may help provide context for the History section. Shii (tock) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a certain way to proceed with those issues. Less is more, but at this point the article is pathetic amongst Nichiren Buddhist related issues.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Shii I think you have it backwards. The history of the organization informs its beliefs and practices.

More than 90% of its B&P are derivative on another religious group, one to with which it was originally associated. It was not founded as a unique NRM based on a newly defined doctrine, like Tenrikyo, for example, or the NRMs you mention.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 02:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

First, NS is by no means a familiar group for English speakers. Second, having read bits and pieces of Human Revolution, I am of the opinion that SG has a lot of social practices -- notably its conception of the master-disciple relationship, and its idealized image of society -- that have no relationship with NS. It asks members to do many things that NS hokkeko do not do. I have no idea what to make of its so-called "peace activism" that seems more like performance art, and I am glad that section is now separate from B&P. Shii (tock) 02:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would maintain that the SG social practices to which you refer grew out of the historical relationship to NS, or more specifically NSS, which was somewhat on the fringe of NS. The disciple-master relationship itself is pretty much a Buddhism-wide phenomenon, though, as far as I know. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in other sects it is only between abbots and monks. SG believes this can apply even between lay members and their... honorary president for life. Shii (tock) 16:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As Margin1522 pointed out, the first paragraph of the section needs to be re-written so that it makes more sense at the top. I hope to have something to submit on that in a day or two.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Shii: This is utter misinformation. The relationship between master and disciple is in all Buddhist traditions foremost a personal relationship between two individuals. Teacher and student. Just like in academia the teacher has gained certain credentials – if the student decides that the credentials does not match his/her curriculum the student leaves – if the teacher decides the student is not worth teaching he/she will not waste each others time. The same goes for Buddhism (except SGI), teacher(master) and student(disciple) have to accept each other. It’s a personal relationship. Not limited to monks. Same goes for the concept of a “guru”. It’s only been due to cult movements that this concept has been misused. In this context, as a cult, SGI follows cult traditions. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Butting in here, but as someone who doesn't know the topic of SG and related that well, I can see a somewhat reasonable question about whether there really can be a "personal relationship" between and teacher and student who may never have met personally and may perhaps reasonably never be expected to have any significant person-to-person interaction. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

John: Well just as I said, and thanks for butting in, the way the concept is interpreted in SGI is unique to SGI. I see no harms in pointing that out, but labelling it Buddhist (or whatever) is farfetched. Even the writings by Nichiren are most of all a correspondence between individuals – and if some do not like the fact – Nichiren was an ordained Tendai priest. There is nothing wrong that SGI defines this concept differently. Not even a need to mention that there is no need for monks, priests, ordained or inidividulas versed in Buddhist Studies in SGI – but it’s surely not a traditional teacher (mentor, master) student (disciple) relationship as has been practiced in Buddhism or whatever is on the market on traditional Asian philosophies. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that people cannot be disciples of someone they never met is not proven by history. That people come to know their mentor through writings and teachings is hardly new. Shakyamuni, Nichiren, Jesus and others are have been mentors to millions. The concept is not like the guilds of ancient Europe where apprentices worked side by side with masters. Nichiren wrote: "The Lotus Sutra is a manifestation in writing of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni's intent. Shakyamuni Buddha and the written words of the Lotus Sutra are two different things, but their heart is one. Therefore, when you cast your eyes upon the words of the Lotus Sutra, you should consider that you are beholding the living body of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni." (WND-1, 333)Ltdan43 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think most Christians describe Jesus as a "mentor". Anyway I was trying to point out that SGI's idea of "mentor" is unique and unrelated to other Buddhist sects. Shii (tock) 22:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloody few Christians would describe Jesus as a mentor. Most would call him God, a god, or some sort of maybe semi-divine first creation. However, there are a number of syncretistic NRMs which include Jesus as some sort of mentor or source of advice.

Getting back to the original post, about maybe spinout articles on the History and Beliefs and Practices (or maybe Theology) of SG, or perhaps spinout article(s) on SG in various individual countries or continents, when there are sufficient sources to establish both notability and enough content to merit a separate article, those can always be good ideas. Has anyone checked to see if there are sufficient independent sources to establish notability of such spinout articles? John Carter (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of semantics. Whether Jesus is considered the son of God, a prophet or teacher, people follow his teachings as a guide on how to live. But forget Jesus. For centuries, people read Shakyamuni's writings and adopted him as their teacher—mentor.Ltdan43 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty gross interpretation of Buddhist hermeneutics. Have you ever talked to a Theravada monk? Especially in Southeast Asia, I think it would be very difficult to find someone who thinks of Buddha as his "mentor". SG's teaching here is unique even among Buddhist groups. Shii (tock) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to interpret other schools, just in my opinion, if you call someone your teacher and use their teachings to guide you through life, it seems to me that is the same as having a mentor. Like I said, it could just be a matter of semantics. I think this quote describes the SGI concept well: “The oneness of the mentor-disciple relationship is described not in terms of demands and duties as many critics imagine it to be, but in terms of choice, freedom and responsibility. It is the disciple’s choice and decision to follow the mentor’s vision for their common goal. In response, it is the mentor’s wish to raise and foster the disciple to become greater than the mentor.” (Richard Seager, Encountering the Dharma, p. 63)Ltdan43 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the SG believes what it believes. As stated earlier, there are forums for debate about whether what the SG believes is or is not orthodox, but I don't think an encyclopedia is one of those forums. I think the sub-section does a pretty good job of explaining the SG's vision of the concept. Perhaps there should be an entire separate entry about "mentor and disciples in traditional Buddhism"? Meanwhile: I had previously asked, here, for a page number to be provided for the Yano reference. None was provided,and the only comment was from Shi stating that the source is not a neutral one anyway. So I removed it. It was returned, nut still with no page number and, presumably, with no revisions to enhance it's neutrality (trusting Shi's characterization - I don't read Japanese, and no translation was provided either). So I removed it again, and replaced it with another source that is arguably more reliable (Jane Hurst).--Daveler16 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten this to include both sides and provide some context. On the one hand, Yano was secretary-general of the Komeito for over a decade, so if anyone should know about the inner workings of the SG and the Komeito, it's him. On the other hand, he's a politician, not a student of Buddhism. I added some more context to the McLaughlin quote to clarify what it means. And restored Daveler16's reference, which seems perfectly fine. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Margin1522: The way it is now written seems perfectly fine and fair to me - with a qualification: I was unaware of Yaino's history, and now that you've explained it, it seems to me that using him as a reference would be roughly equivalent to using Ikeda as a reference to explain something in the Nichiren Shoshu entry. Should disgruntled former members (and officers!) be used in a section on the sect's doctrine? Or might he be more appropriately used in a section on history, or political activities? Anyway,, until there is some consensus that this section is about what SG believes and practices, and not what others think it should believe and practice, I appreciate that your re-write is probably as fair as we can get. I do see that my change - which I discussed here - was once again reverted with no discussion whatsoever, which is too bad. Thank you for your efforts (and intercession). --Daveler16 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that the misquoted reference from Prebish and Tanaka had been restored to the first paragraph. I have fixed it again. Frst, the book it cites is a compilation of various authors, and the chapter on the SG was written by Jane Hurst - not by Prebish and Tanaka, as the footnote had stated (they are the editors). Second, the footnote cited a page that has nothing to do with the SG/NS split. Finally, it does not say, or imply, that doctrinal differences were not the main issue - it just lists issues, without assigning levels of importance to them. I have changed the FN to reflect Hurst's authorship, corrected the page number, and included the actual quote referred to. I don't think this is a particularly big deal (though somebody does if they went to the trouble of reverting from accuracy), but I removed the qualifying phrase that Hurst never included.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the first topic in this Talk sub section: I have inserted a paragraph that does not assume prior knowledge, or familiarity with the rest of the SG entry. I notice that it does make some sentences of the subsequent op-ening paragraphs redundant, s so I'll fix those.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

...And I did: I removed most of the SG changes to NS, so it doesn't seem so self-serving. That makes it much shorter and more readable too, I think.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Margin. Being a politician precludes one from being a student of Buddhism? "No affairs of life or work are ever contrary to the true reality", if i recall correctly. Also, think Prince Shotoku and Emperor Kammu.108.197.205.124 (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 11/23/14

"In fact"

I removed the wirds "in fact" from the assertion "In fact, his main motivation was religious, not political" in the Makiguchi sub section on Repression During the War. It's really too complicated an issue to say "in fact" about someone's motivation. True, M. objected to religious consolidation; but, as a number of sources indicate, the reason for the religious consolidation was to support the wat effort (I added one reference about that) (BTW, I had to edit it twice because of an date error in a footnote)--Daveler16 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your conclusions are wishful thinking. SG came under oppression on religious grounds not political ones. SG did not support State Shinto which is not necessarily the same as Shinto. In fact the idea of Shinto is in a religious context relatively new. Any attempts to portray SG as an opposition to Japanese Fascism are factually incorrect. Neither Makiguchi nor Toda to any great extent distanced themselves from war atrocities committed by the Japanese. Changes in that policy did indeed started in Ikeda’s reign as the information age did start before the internet – so no use in denying the obvious. Surely anyone would be pewed if an A-bomb is dropped on one’s own country on the other hand SG is not on the forefront to speak up against human rights violations and war atrocities taking place NOW – a fact that also should be mentioned. As a matters of fact SG never ever took a stand on human rights violations taking place in China or Russia today – never ever. In that respect the Catholic Church under Bendict is far more outspoken that SGI ever was. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not disputing that that's an allegation, and I'm not removing that allegation. I just removed the phrase "in fact". as there are other opinions and other documentation. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Order of subsections

At one point I remember a discussion about the order of the subsections. It was centered on whether "History" or "Beliefs & Practices." If I recall properly it was started by Margin1522 under the title "Belief and Practices First." I don't think the issue was ever settled besides some attempted edits and reverts.

Can we all ring in with opinions? Looking at the articles about other religions, there does not seem to be a clear consensus. Catholicism and Judaism hold off on history until later in their respective articles. Calvinism, on the other hand, starts with history.

IMHO, I think B&P at the top will suit our readers the most. I believe they want to know what this organization stands for, what makes it similar/unique, what its members actually "do." History is certainly important but to most readers what occurred in the 30's, 40's, 50's and even 60's and 70's was before their birth.

That's my two cents. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Catholicism and Judaism both see themselves as being the "original" form of their belief system, and their beliefs are in lots of ways not so clearly based on previous similar beliefs, like is the case with Calvinism. It would make sense for Calvinism to discuss the history, and the inherited ideas and points of differentiation, first in a history section which details why they broke away from the earlier group. I guess the decision for this article would be based on to what extent the beliefs of SGI are more or less inherited from a previous group and to what extent they are original. If most of their belief system is "inherited," then I myself would start with a "History" section indicating the reasons and time of the breakaway from the earlier group. If most of it is in some way "original," then starting with beliefs might make more sense. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. I agree with your approach. I think it is very original. I've been writing my take on the B&P in my Sandbox 9https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox). I used the term "revivalist" because its original form revived the founder's (Nichiren) teaching and spirit which had been lost for many centuries.BrandenburgG (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Makiguchi's motivation for linking with NS was that it enhanced his theory of value creation. If he had linked with another sect, would the result have been the same? Probably: the SG, it seems to me, has the chanting, the Gohonzon and the sutra recitation in common with other Nichiren sects, but it certainly could have gotten those from any of them - or none, really. It's reasons for practicing, its goals, its motivation based on value and life force are quite distinct, and were not all derived, from other sects. Look at txhe history - one conflict with the priests after another. Nothing in "History" is essential to explaining or understanding what the SG believes and practices; so, I think, Beliefs and Practices ought to lead off. --Daveler16 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Brandenburg...Wishful thinking and oh so subjective...More appropriately, altered the founder's teaching to mold Nichiren in Ikeda's image. 108.197.205.124 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 11/23/2014

"I think it's pretty clear that Makiguchi's motivation for linking with NS was that it enhanced his theory of value creation." This had less to do with his theories – he did try to get involved with Nichiren Shu too but was refused. This in some respect again boils down to the concept of master and disciple – a master can and quite often will refuse a disciple … same goes the other way round. Makiguchi’s involvement with Nichiren Buddhism started with attending lectures of nationalistic Nichirenists, a fact that some might not like. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything here for some to like or not like. Miyata describes Makiguchi's "religious wandering" as a youth here http://hw001.spaaqs.ne.jp/miya33x/paper10-1.html. Yes, as part of his wandering Makiguchi attended lectures by Chigaku Tanaka. Of course, if it's "one strike, you're out," then Makiguchi should be discounted for attending the lectures. From another perspective his attendance shows a broad search for meaning.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The question (posed by John Carter, whom I paraphrase) is is the SG theology evolved independent of NS, the answer to which might determine the placement of Beliefs and Practices. Your argument, I think, strengthens the notion that it is independent, that it wasn't NS so mucvh but Nichiren that attracted Makiguchi in the first place. Is thyat what you're saying? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "paraphrasing" of John Carter's "question" is a false construction the way I see it, and your question to Catflap is equally mind boggling. Catflap appears to be contrasting NS (Nichiren-shoshu) to Nichiren-shu, incidentally. The "notion" that there was anything "independent" would appear to be by-and-large imaginary.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the question really is: "Is the SG belief something developed independently of NS?" The answer is "Yes", and Catflap's observation supports that - Makiguchi was shopping for a sect to support his thinking. I changed another part of the opening, using the material Brandenburg shared in his Sandbox; this makes it even clearer, I think.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC

@Ubikwit, I'm afraid I don't understand your comment "The "notion" that there was anything "independent" would appear to be by-and-large imaginary." Which citation of Davelef16 do you disagree with? Which citation are you holding up to dispute his edits?≈≈≈≈

I think the problem is that anything critical of the SG, or that keeps it as some sort of subset of Nichiren Shoshu, is "neutral" and "objective; while anything that is positive, or that happens to coincide with the SG's own view of itself, is "self promoting" or otherwise biased. I would argue that this is wrong, but it seems to be the rule under which some of us are operating. I hope I'm wrng about that.Anyway, I changed iit back. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The real problem is that SGI "theology" devolved from Nichiren's.107.203.17.51 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 06/10/2014

Toda: 1945-1958

I would like to ask help in revising this section of the SG article. At the present time it is superficial and biased. There is nothing here about Toda's contribution to the SG's perspectives about Buddhism. Only one narrative is presented, one that rests on bullying as the primary reason for the SG's growth. The alternative narrative is that Toda was deeply awakened in prison to a mission to propagate the SG movement and that he had a profound and lasting relationship to his mentor. Both of these resulted in acumen, organizational genius, and an ability to touch the lives of people--thus resulting in the SG's growth.

Both narratives need to be explored in this article. Balanced vocabulary should be selected as well. "Aggressive proselytizing" is certainly mentioned in sources. But so, too, is "intensive shakubuku drive" (Murata, 101) or "massive proselytization" (Queen).

The present section hops from "aggressive prosyletyzing" to "Raccoon Dog" to speeches on a white horse, to scandalous funeral. This is not a fair portrayal of a man whom, many might say, played a pivotal role in history.

I hope that other editors can join me in this work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I added some information about T's contributions between his release from prison (1945) and his inauguration (1951).

BrandenburgG (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I made revisions to the Toda subsection. I organized the section into several subsections, I don't believe that anyone will have a problem with this. I introduced more material and citations into the shakubuku subsection and the relationship with NS subsection. I believe both of these subsections are more balanced now.

I have to raise a flag about the work of an earlier editor in the "death and legacy" subsection. By stating that there was a leadership vacuum for two years this editor seriously misused the Murata citation he/she cites. First of all the editor does not cite any page. Secondly, the page which discusses the matter (118) states exactly the opposite. According to this page, by the second month following Toda's death, Ikeda was appointed general director "which put him virtually in charge of the entire organization." I plan on addressing this issue later this week. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much finished my editing of the subsection on Toda. I believe this part of the article is accurate, incorporates a variety of sources, and is balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Toda section is now very long

The Toda section is now very long, is written in the style of a debate (informative but not encyclopedic), and has a lot of extraneous material attempting to construct a narrative. Given the huge gap between SG's own narrative and what was witnessed by outsiders, should we really trust "Primary sources published by the Soka Gakkai" as the most reliable way to explain the 1950s? What is the benefit of having two narratives when the second narrative is simply constructed by insiders -- something that is held with suspicion on WP?

No, the SG's narrative supports the second narrative I provided which I backed with citation from scholars that have long been accepted in this article. The second narrative is essential because the first portrays T and his leadership as violent proselytizing with him sitting on a white horse and hounding Ogasawara--not anything about his unique contributions. Terribly, terribly, terribly one-sided!!!!

Further, the SG's narrative is important to readers as long as it is labeled as being such. Give the reader a menu of choices and let him/her decide.

This paragraph is typical of narrative building and wordiness: In 1951 he tells in his own hand, in an essay entitled "The History and Conviction of the Soka Gakkai," his experience before the war, his realizations during his imprisonment, his efforts to rebuild the Soka Gakkai, and his concerns for the future. This is about Toda's character (although it is a little too personal even for a biography article) and is not about the history of SG.

Not my work. BrandenburgG (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The tone of BrandenburgG's writing is a bit too chatty, for example: One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident" .

Predates my edits.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the Ikeda and Conflict sections are in a good state and do not need a lot of editing. Shii (tock) 20:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I disagree here as well. 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.

Sorry, Shii, hope I did not ruin your vacation.

BrandenburgG (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Brandenburg, could you please confirm to set standards on how to reply to a post???? Happy Holidays. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what am I doing wrong?

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Consider me skeptical that Ikeda was somehow a UN thought leader... His "success" in talking to a lot of people is something promoted in Gakkai PR but I have not seen it mentioned in discussing SG's social role in Japan and beyond. Similarly, he has been very good at picking up honorary scholarships from universities but I don't see a larger literature on what this means. Shii (tock) 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I opened the bag too soon on Ikeda. Let's finish our work on Toda, then move to a new section.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as you said I am officially on vacation, but I will happily offer input on this talk page or do a bit of cleanup. I personally don't think " Give the reader a menu of choices and let him/her decide." is the most accurate way of describing Wikipedia's mission, but is there an actual guideline that recommends against having two separate narratives? Never heard of one. Shii (tock) 10:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the entire history section needs work - negative stuff happened, for sure, but it's unlikely the SG grew from a handful after WW2 to an international organization, embraced in many countries by local institutions and governments, with school systems and think tanks established, countless people crediting it with changing their lives - solely because they brainwashed a few people, intimidated others, and paid for an occasional doctorate. But that is definitely the impression one might get from WP. So it only makes sense there were many positive events and ideas that contributed to the SG's evolution, and they ought to be included also. But I think more people could contribute thoughtfully if you work on .ne history thing at a time? Maybe Toda, since people are already working hard on it? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shii, Happy holidays and greetings to everyone who is volunteering on WP during Christmas. Shii, I did not mean any coyness in my post. You have worked long and hard to bring this article together and you deserve our gratitude--and a vacation. You are always welcome back home, and I am sure all fellow editors agree. Please pass by any suggestions you may have on the JT subsection and I will try to incorporate.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Narrative is a quite good phrase to sum up major parts of the article --Catflap08 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Change section name

How about changing "Beliefs and Practices" to "Beliefs and Practices of the Soka Gakkai" This may seem a small, even trivial, change; but I think we need to emphasize the SG, and narrow the focus to the beliefs of that group, as opposed to those of Nichiren sects as a whole. Thanks for your thoughts. --Daveler16 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that necessary though? We are in the SG article Shii (tock) 10:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shii. We could put in the first sentence of the section, but as it stands I think that is a really good sentence, perhaps the most important one in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying to decontextualize the developments documented according to RS in accordance with WEIGHT in order to make the article into a promotional presentation.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ubikwit, but "not belittling or denigrating" is not the same as "promotional". And, you are n the minoority in this. And, you are wrong. I don't know how many scholars saying so it will take for you to leave these changes alone, and I don't know what youir stake is in conveying that the SG is a derivative of NS in the face of overwhewlming evidence to the contrary. But if you let me know, I will try to meet that standard. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, don't understand why you reverted my changes to the subsection on Soka University of America. I did not change any content. In fact I added the link to the Santa Monica environmental group's press release announcing the sale of the earlier campus to them. I also moved the paragraph about the old campus to the end of the subsection. This is not promotional. This paragraph earlier split the discussion about the school and its status into two different locations. I like how it reads much better now. Most WP readers will want to know the lead material first--the details about the current school's program and how it is doing. That is relevant. The story of what occurred years before the main campus opened will interest a few readers, I am sure, but hardly the majority.

I don't understand your insistence on "history first" which runs counter to almost all of the other editors who see more value in "Beliefs and Practices" first. You keep on reverting and insisting you are right on this when there is a clear split in the articles about other religions--some "history" first, others "beliefs and practices" first. There is nothing promotional about this. It's just a service to readers. Most, I am willing to bet, want to know what is this organization about right now. You, and I'm sure a few other, want to take the long road about history. Maybe this is tangential, but most people who buy a device want to know how to turn it on and use it first. Only a few want the salesperson to go over the device's development and history.

Have a Happy New Year, folks.

BrandenburgG (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me break some protocol here and wish all our hard-working editors a happy and healthy New Year! BrandenburgG (talk) 13:03, 1 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. Wikipedia 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)

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)

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^連絡_{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)

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 Wikipedia 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 [Ikeda] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.

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)

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)

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^連絡_{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. Wikipedia: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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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 [who put this into practice]. I must admit my own astonishment at this [achievement]. 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^連絡_{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? [1] 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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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 [gain or loss] 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^連絡_{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^連絡_{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 [Buddhist] 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

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/wiki/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/wiki/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/wiki/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