Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

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 [types of proof] 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 [religious] 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 ^連絡 _{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)

ANI discussion

There is currently discussion regarding this article at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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)

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 ^連絡 _{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 ^連絡 _{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)

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; [1]--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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Soka Association. Kelvintjy (talk) 14:38, 8 February 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 ^連絡 _{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 ^連絡 _{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 Wikipedia 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 ^連絡 _{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 Wikipedia 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 ^連絡 _{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 ^連絡 _{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 ^連絡 _{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, [herehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501401.html here]. 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 ^連絡 _{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 Wikipedia 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 ^連絡 _{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 ^連絡 _{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

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 [2]--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)

Beliefs and practices

To my taste the beliefs and practices section still lacks one thing – facts. The article is packed yet again with flowery wordings and yet again is written like an advertisement. I guess it is time for the article to get rated again.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me it's becoming more about what the SG beliefs and practices. Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?--Daveler16 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Also (and maybe more to the point), the references used are the exact same references (to the page number) that were already there - just made complete. If Ramseyer says "SG teaches personal gain" (he doesn't, exactly, but that's a paraphrase) but also says "that means enlightened self interest not in conflict with the social good"; but an editor includes only the first part - isn't that advocacy and selective editing to feed a POV? All that's happened is that the references that were already there (and put there by someone other than me) have been expanded to clarify what the author is saying. Same thing with the Chilson reference in the Mentor sub section. And, if all we want to say about what the SG believes and practices concerning proselytizing is that in the 50s and 60s some people didn't like its method, isn't that also advocating a POV, since there is so much more (and more recent) info available? Nothing that was there has been removed - it's still noted that people were offended, but now there is an explanation of an actual belief of the SG about its practice. That said, please do note that I have removed or re-worded a couple things that seemed to be a little overboard in using an SG POV.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ramseyer p. 160

"From the start the Soka Gakkai was more interested in religion providing "personal gain" for adherents." This is in the first paragraph of B&P - in fact, it's about a third of the first paragraph. The reference is "Ramseye, SG Militant Religion on the March, p. 160", with a quote in the footnote.

The sentiment "From the start the Soka Gakkai was more interested in religion providing "personal gain" for adherents" is not nearly what Ramseyer is expressing on p. 160 where his arguments are nuanced, subtle, complicated. Basically he's questioning whether a religion without absolutes is really a religion.

Ramseyer says: 1) the aim of Makiguchi's philosophy is to "bring the things which one desires, specifically the happy life, which is the aim of all human life, is the justification for that religion". 2)"Makiguchi is not so much concerned with outlining in objective fashion the nature of value, as he is concerned with showing man the road to true salvation and happiness." 3) This "is true to his Buddhist heritage". 4)"the salvation of man becomes the most important value in this universe; and this salvation is made the only true aim of religion." 5) then(the quote in the footnote) "for Makiguchi, the object of worship is not the Lord, the Ruler, to whom absolute loyalty is given, but rather a tool to be used for personal gain." But 6)"Personal advantage as defined by Makiguchi, however, is not a narrow self-interest, but rather something that might be called enlightened self-interest. It is never in conflict with the public good."

I have no objection to saying "the SG has always been interested in religion providing personal gain", but if we leave it just at that, it kind of mischaracterizes what Ramseyer is saying and perhaps betrays a POV on the part of the editor who extracted that bit and only that bit. I think either we can add Point 6 above; or, we just drop the sentence because these issues are all covered elsewhere.

(And, btw, goes on to p. 161 betraying an utter lack of understanding the concept of dependent origin. And this whole section seems to be about how Christianity is better - but a lot of what he seems to consider weakness (e.g., "there is no discontinuity between the object of worship and the worshipper") would be a strength to most Buddhists, and certainly to SG members.) --Daveler16 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed a small paragraph from the "Chanting Nam...." sub section. It wasn't all that informative or necessary.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Therte seemed to be no objections, so I msade a change - included more of what Ramseyer wrote rather than deleting.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gohonzon just a tool? Not possessing the Three Virtues? My my, how SGI has deviated from the teachings of the Master Nichiren. 2602:306:CD27:E499:B0D2:DA36:DF1E:9008 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 3/7/2015

JTB thing

I'd like to add the JTB scandal in here - where Soka Gakkai asked JTB (of whom they are a major customer) to ask its employees to sign a list they would support Komeito in the previous election. Note that Soka Gakkai are careful to note it wasn't the party but only the religious organization that asked for this. This was broadly covered and heavily criticized in Japanese mainstream media. But where should it go? It seems like there's currently no section for anything non-historic. It's confusing with one headline reading "Ikeda (1960-)" and the next headline being "1969" - why not keep with the "Makiguchi, Toda Ikeda" headlines and make 1969 thing a sub-headline under Ikeda? As it's now, where do I put something that happened in 2014? 126.59.94.184 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

For those who don't know what I'm talking about (just posting the tiniest sliver of all the coverage this has got in Japan): [3][4][5], [6][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.59.94.184 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Change to Proselytizing sub 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 ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does need a re-write, as most editors here have said at one time or another. There will be one available for perusal in a day or two. Maybe three.--68.4.250.188 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That was me, last comment - evidently had been signed out. Ubikwit, why don't you wait and see? You might like tyhe changes, or at least might not find mind them. It would be nice if you could help work on improving something rather than reverting those who are trying.

Shii (misspelled your name last time): ran "shakubuku" through 3 dictionaries. Jisho.org defines it a "preaching down; religious conversion through prayer. Tangorin,com is similar: "preaching down; religious conversion of somebody through prayer" . Went through Lexilogos to find csse.monash.edu.au, which is closest to what I have always thought: "preaching down; breaking down somebody's false beliefs through confrontation (in order to convert them to the right faith)". None of the dictionaries I found mention "forced conversion" or "break and destroy". I wonder if they are accurate - seems odd to me that both SG and NS would use translations that sound aggressive when there are more benign translatins available. What do we think?--Daveler16 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh. All three of those dictionaries are just different revisions of EDICT, which is a user-generated source and therefore not RS. Shii (tock) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the "preaching down" definition is close to what you see in most Japanese dictionaries. The term comes from one of Nichiren's favorite sutra passages. He was involved in many debates with representatives of other sects. The idea is to defeat your opponent in a debate and thereby convert them to the true faith. So it's important that both sides are Buddhists with true or false ideas, and the outcome is that the true side wins. It's a battle of ideas. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I am seeing something like that in the dictionaries I checked. If this is defined in McLaughlin 2012 or Kisala 2004, let's use their definition. More recent RS with a neutral stance. Shii (tock) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

McLaughlin 2012: "shakubuku might be translated as 'to break and subdue (attachments to inferior teachings)'." That's on p.2 of the pdf version. Kisala says "break and subdue, and it involves the use of a rather fierce polemic in order to get the subject to reject his or her previous beliefs." So I guess "break and subdue" for sure - with the qualifiers that that refers to beliefs?--Daveler16 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Shii (tock) 12:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Made the changes: The previous sub section Was quite short. Added the definition of "shakubuku" from McLaughlin. The Montgomery source cited ("p. 185-186") included two complex sentences, but only half of each sentence was used. I've included the information in the other half of those sentences - didn't even have to amend the existing footnote. Since the "Orange County Register" reference was useless, I found another source for saying that the word "shukubuku" is still used. Finally, I updated the state of SG proselytizing, so that there is more information than mere mention that some people once found it abrasive.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Included full quote. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I re-added the part that got deleted. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the consensus was here (considering "forced conversion" is currently included in the article) but if you were discussing removing "forced conversion", I'd just like to add I think it should definitely stay. What English-Japanese dictionaries define "shakubuku" as isn't necessarily relevant here - what's of more interest is how religious/Japanology scholars has described/translated it in English language.

Joseph Kitagawa: "He instilled a militant spirit into the organization by inaugurating an unscrupulous and aggressive method of forced conversion (shaku-buku). To effect conversion", John Weldon: "Shakubuku is the forceful method of conversion, whereas “shoju” is themore moderate approach.", Achilles Gacis: "The way that Nichiren propagated his teachings was through shakubuku, "forced conversion or a way of aggressively conquering evil", Asian Survey (1967) "Shaku- buku is an expression of religious conviction, as well ... In practice, it represents an externally forced conversion upon non-members". (all available on google books, and this is just a handful of the works that use this translation). 126.59.94.184 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing Conversation

I had asked Shii to taker a gander at my Sandbox, and now I'm inviting everyone to do so Here: [[8]] Shii said it looked okay, but txhen Ubikwit came into the conversation and said: "Shii may approve, but I don't, and I don't consider the decontextualization to be policy compliant, because SG is a Nichiren-derivative movement. I will consider it disruptive if you post that, and ArbCom is on the horizon if I have to deal with your advocacy again." To which Shii replied: "Once again there is a strong historicism going on here. We already have a History section in the article that makes SG's origins cl ear." Now you're up to date. I would here mention the dangers of negative advocacy, as of well as that of original research that ignores not only where the sources lead but also the opinions of other editors, both being impediments to a well written, balanced and accurate article. I have retained the historical context - just did not make it the central point of what the Soka Gakkai believes and practices, choosing instead to make what the Soka Gakkai believes and practices to be the central point of the Beliefs and Practices section. BTW, this one is shorter than the current B&P section, and includes the 5 Points a couple of editors have been asking for.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, and I see some improvement but the text, especially the opening, is not encyclopedic, in my opinion. It is far to verbose, for one, and makes statements like "it's three founding presidents", which is not only a contradiction in terms, it is not the way the cited source describes them. Toda is described as Makiguchi's "disciple", Makiguchi his "master", with Toda described as "succeeding his master as president". Ikeda suceeded Toda, but Ikeda did not found SG, either. He founded SGI.

I do not want to have to go through this type of exercise again, because it is a replay. I suggest that you simply try to expand the current section by adding well-sourced text that does not sound promotional.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point about "the 3 founding presidents" is well taken - that's an SG phrase and not found in independent sources (unless they're quoting SG material). Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Put in the "5 guidelines" because a couple of people had asked they be included.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good content to add.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Made the def. of "shakubuku" in the sub section "The Great Shakubuku March" consistent with what was agreed on earlier and is used in the Proselytizing sub section.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Added a couple of sentences on discussion meetings, as they seem a key element of SG practice. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16I do believe that your edits all were done in good faith but must say that some sections do now rather read as if they were a SGI brochure. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: The thing is, whether you prefer to call the SG and organization or a religio0n, either implies some social activity. The entry had nothing about the SG's social gatherings for its members. We know they propagated, are no longer allowed at the temple, support Komeito, and evidently dance sometimes - but that's about it. Don't you think a few sentences about its primary group religious activity has a place? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tanuki Incident

"One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident" which took..."

I think this requires better language. What is meant by "went down in the Gakkai annals"? Whose annals are we talking about? SG's literature about itself? Historical accounts of the SG by scholars? What, after all, are annals? Very imprecise and sloppy language here. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is sloppy about such a wording? One editor might have used it to describe the events. Finding sources on SG’s past is a tedious task in any language except Japanese, as it is a subject nobody really cares about. The most non-partisan description of SG’s history is the one described by Montgomery. As soon as so called “studies” are supported by SG (i.e. Sold in its bookstores) out goes the neutrality. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the section consists of 8 lines of writing, and there is no footnote until the end of the 4th line - half way through it. And this reference is to Montgomery, who does not ever call it "Raccoon Dog Festival", not make any reference to "Gakkai annals". I have run across no scholarship that talks of this incident being preserved in "Gakkai annals", and in fact the only reference to it in any Gakkai publication I've run across is a description of the event in Human Revolution - which does NOT refer to it as "Raccoon Dog Festival". The first part of this section reads like somebody's essay, and appears largely to be made up by the editor.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the source. It is in Brannen (1968). "This incident, which later became known as the Badger (tanuki) Incident in the annals of Soka Gakkai, gave the organization such a reputation for violence that a religious council of the Nichiren Sho Denomination was called." (p. 92).

It might have been the talk of the town ("in the annals of Soka Gakkai") at that time but in 1968 the Nixon-Humphrey race was the talk of the town here. Neither is the talk of the town these days.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

At any rate it's not referenced on the page. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone raises an objection and can find a source beyond 1968 I would like to remove the phrase "in the annals of the Soka Gakkai" for the reasons cited above.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the "annals" simply refers to the "history", as per this definition, of the Soka Gakkai.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: But isn't using it the way you suggest Original Research? The entry states "One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident"..." and there is no evidence that any SG history or publication refers to such a thing - and the phrase implies that it's the SG that calls it "the raccoon dog festival incident", when it quite obviously does not. (This is probably he end of my comments on this particyular topic for now - other fish to fry :-) --Daveler16 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You could state, "One controversial event that occurred is known as the "raccoon dog festival incident", or something to that effect, if the phrase bothers you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you, will do.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo of the Gohonzon

I was looking through the Soka Gakkai wikipedia page and noticed that there is a photo of the gohonzon. Would it be possible to remove this photo as there aren't supposed to be photos of it? Morella.almann (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. There is a picture of a Gohonzon on the Wikipedia entry of every Nichiren sect I've see, Wikipedia is not bound by its subjects' sensitivities, and if the picture is removed it will be restored almost immediately.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because of WP:CENSOR, not about anyone’s sensitives. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."--Catflap08 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I also recoil when I see the image. But there is wisdom in the WP policy mentioned above. For example, many Muslims find depictions of the prophet Muhammad to be offensive. Yet there is an article Depictions_of_Muhammad which discusses the matter in detail and includes quite a few images. I think it is in everyone's interest to have an open forum here.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)