Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 2

Excommunication
Article said: "This culminated in the unprecedented and unilateral excommunication of the SGI and its 10 million members worldwide."

Problems:
 * 1) How was Soka Gakkai/SGI's excommunication "unprecedented"? Several organizations have been "excommunicated" in the past; given all the Soka Gakkai's provocations in the period up to the excommunication, it is also difficult to see how it was "unilateral."
 * 2) Except for those in Soka Gakkai or Soka Gakkai-back publications (such as Daisan Bummei), I find little evidence that NS excommunicated all SGI members. Indeed, NS was specific in excommunicating the organizations but not the general membership, and only Ikeda Daisaku and Akiya Einosuke (IIRC) were specifically removed from the NS believers roster.

Article also says: "Another group which has formed as result of a split from Soka Gakkai is I-Chinen-Sanzen. The lay organization owes its allegiance to Nichiren Shoshu." Jim_Lockhart 07:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) )What is this "I-Chinen-Sanzen" group? In any case, it is not the same as the Hokkeko, nor was Hokkeko formed as a result of "a split from Soka Gakkai": Hokkeko's existence predates that of Soka Gakkai by several hundred years.

Jim, do you mind if you chill and read a bit further. I-chinen-Sanzen is what SGI calls the group of believers who went and join Hokkeko group after the excommunication. That is why I wonder if it should be linked to the Hokkeko article. Gammadion 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this I-Chinen-Sanzen group?
I can find no evidence of this I-Chinen-Sanzen group purported at the end of the article to "owe allegiance" to Nichiren Shoshu and would like to remove the statement if no one has objections.Jim_Lockhart 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok with me. Know the concept, but never heard of a group...


 * According to my information from inside SGI, they are former Soka Gakkai members who decided to leave Gakkai and join the Hokkeko lay-believers(Temple group lay believers) in the excommunication event(A.D. 1992). Technically treated as official public cannon in discussion meetings which public members do attend.Gammadion 03:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I-Chinen Sanzen group: But there is no group that calls itself I-Chinen Sanzen, right? (Must be some sort of local joke somewhere, though. I can imagine that it's meant to be funny in a derogatory manner.) I know from personal experience that ex-Soka Gakkai members in Japan are subject to some quite nasty harassment (usually borderline legal, and the leadership of course absolves itself of all knowledge and encouragement), with the particularly nasty stuff reserved for people who joined a temple group. But this is all irrelevant to the existence of a real group that calls itself I-Chinen Sanzen. Fwiw, in Japan Soka Gakkai members referred to people who quit and went to the temples as danto (which is an old word for people who are temple patrons or parishioners), and I've seen this usage in Gakkai (SGI) publications from the US and Europe as well. SGI has given the word a particular negative connotation.

On your word usage: True, you don't mince words, and that (as well as being bold) is fine; nonetheless, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox or pulpit. Further, sometimes your writing is unclear, so some people are not sure of what to make of it and therefore hesitate to edit it. For example, above you write, "Technically treated as official public cannon in discussion meetings which public members do attend"; I think what you mean is "In practice, people who have left SGI for the temples are open game as cannon fodder at SGI discussion meetings, which are also attended by members of the general public." In this sense, "R" (Ruby?) has some very valid points. Make your writing less open to misunderstanding and umbrage, and you will do better.

Here's a suggestion: When you write a contribution, don't just post whatever comes to mind and out the end of your fingertips. Slow down a bit, go back over what you've written (print it out if you can), view it a few times in preview (press the "Show preview" button) and makes minor changes to improve it then, before you make your final save (even after that, you'll still find stuff to change, but save it for another session). Your contributions will come out all that much better and, if you can tone down the rhetoric and stick to verifiable facts, your contributions will be more credible.

Some details on SGI's excommunication for you: Nichiren Shoshu's governing board issued a public statement on November 11, 1991, urging Soka Gakkai to disband on grounds that Soka Gakkai had lost its stated reason for existence (which was, until Soka Gakkai changed its kisoku and kaisoku [basically, the governing rules and charter-like document it had to submit to the Ministry of Education when it incorporated] in March 2002, to spread and uphold the teachings and practice of Nichiren Shoshu); this was called kaisan kankoku (解散勧告). There is an English version floating around, but the translation is very poor. The "excommunication" (hamon, 破門) itself took place on November 28, 1991, and applied to only the incorporated entities Soka Gakkai and SGI, but not to individual members themselves. Daisaku Ikeda was personally "excommunicated" (actually, his name was struck from the roster of believers, an action called shinto jomei [信徒除名]) on August 11, 1992, after he had demonstrated (from the priests' perspective) that he had no intention of following their admonitions. The definitive actions cited are that Soka Gakkai changed the content of the silent prayers practioners offer when doing gongyo, and that Soka Gakkai had established in own kind of memorial book (kakochō, 過去帳), things normally done only by the priesthood. The real shock to the priests came a year later when Pres. Akiya announced at a leaders meeting on September 7 that Soka Gakkai would begin distributing its own home-made gohonzons that were copies (with a few minor alterations) of a gohonzon inscribed by 26th High Priest Nichikan (mid-18th century)!

Meanwhile, have fun. :) Jim_Lockhart 13:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, got to agree with Jim on the Ichinen Sanzen part. I go see what more I can dig up on the danto(which had been referred before in discussion meetings.Gammadion 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

R & J exchange words
J: I got a notice from the Wiki software that this section was getting too long (seems we exceeded, or were about to exceed, a 32kB threshold), so I've split this up a bit. I tried to do it issue-by-issue, but it may not have worked; also, a couldn't resist sticking my tongue in my cheek in a couple of spots .... Jim_Lockhart 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting started
R: Nice job, J. Still, most of what you refer to is anecdotal. And whether or not I can read your references, it is still preferable that you cite them. You ask that people dig deeper, so why not share the wealth? How do you know I don't speak Japanese? At any rate it is obvious that your experince with SG is different from mine with SGI. I am glad of it. Whatever you are practicing hasn't made you very happy, that's for sure. But let me go on point for point.


 * J4: Yes, what I've written on this page (which is not part of the article—at least, not directly) is anecdotal; as also, for the most part, written among the three of us participating in this conversation. Hence I feel less of an obligation to back everything up that I write here, considering that (as is I'm sure the case with you and Gammadion, too) I'm writing in good faith. It is obvious that our experiences with SG/SGI are different, which is—I'm sure—fine. Just so we're clear: anything I write here is an attempt to help us figure out how to fairly reflect all sets of views in the article so readers have enough raw material to either draw their own conclusions, or to use what's there to dig further on their own. The views we have on SG/SGI are, to be frank, irreconcilable; but that doesn't mean we can't use them to work out something that will be useful for other people, if they are interested. (Frankly, sometimes I wonder how many people are really interested in these things besides those who are already passionate about them!)


 * By the way, the subhead I chose was actually meant to be a bit humorous, but I guess I fell on my face with that one! Jim_Lockhart 11:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

J1: Gammadion, Ruby has a point when you write from the hip. Nonetheless... I haven't been to a Soka Gakkai meeting for about 13 or 14 years, but if what I experienced at them back then is anything to go by, your descriptions are accurate. Still, your evidence is anecdotal, and that's where the problems start.


 * R: And, by the way, I haven't been to a meeting since BEFORE 9 years ago - so perhaps things really are different. From what I have heard, the split from NSA really freed SGI up a lot, and it is growing like crazy. But then, that's just what I have heard, and just from what I know, where I live over here in Jersey/New York. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but it would really be too bad, if that was the case. Personally, I haven't had any of the kind of negative experiences to speak of. And I don't mean that its some perfect world going on, with everyone all happy and smiley all the time (though by the end of a meeting, everyone usually is!), or that everyones' personalities meshing 100 percent of the time and we never have differences of opinion, or get into cat fights etc., (now, that WOULD be creepy!). But my experience has been that everyone really is committed to and working towards the same goals - helping each other through, helping create a better world,learning and putting into practice the art of dialogue, learning and putting into practice the art of compassion, learning and putting into practice the concepts of love thy neighbor even when he drives you nuts, everyone is striving to build a better life, a better world, really working to develop themselves as individuals, in their relationships, on their jobs, and then also at the broader level, through their life work, through their involvement with peace or earth movements, etc., or through their involvement in arts, or education, law, medicine, or whatever. - R

Grist for Gammadion's mill
J1: So maybe I can provide a little more grist for your mill: Here in Japan, SG/SGI's official pronouncements on things to do with its critics and the actual behavior of its members in the street have always been widely divergent. Members are never directly encouraged to do anything socially unacceptable—word gets out using more suggestive means. This way, when someone gets caught SG can (and does) say with a straight face that the person was acting on his or her own.


 * R: Once again, where's your source?


 * J2: My primary source for much of this is personal experience and the personal experience of family, friends, and acquaintances; further afield, my source(s) encompass over 20 years.... Well, this part doesn't really matter, because for every hundred people I can find to back me up, you'd be able to find 200 Gakkai members who would negate it. As far as media and academic sources go, most of those I have are not in English, so I doubt you'd be able to check them even if you had access to them.


 * R: I am really saddened to hear these thngs. But, ONCE AGAIN, please name and cite the source. You don't need to worry whether or not I can read Japanese.




 * J4: I inserted one source at the end of the article. I used it in working on the "Excommunication" section to ensure that I got the sequence and dates correct; however, it looks like it is, unfortunately, not available through the usual channels. If you can read Japanese (or have access to someone who can), I know it's available in Nichiren Shoshu temples—maybe you could slip in to buy a copy (or I could get one to you some other way). I will look around for other sources that will be easier to access and post them some time going forward.


 * R:I'd like to get a hold of it. But why would I have to "sneak in?" What is that about? Anyway, maybe some of this is available through the library? Perhaps a university library with an Asian history section might have some of it...get me some names and I can look...Please do cite anything that you can find...


 * I wonder, someone raised a question about the validity of using SGI pubs in an SGI article -- suggested that anything coming from them must be tainted or questionable. Yet the cite you source comes from the temple - is it possible there might be an agenda there, as well? I'm not one to ban something just because I don't like the author or the source, but I would read it with the same critical mind as I would anything else, seeking out outside sources, looking to see if what they say is what is happening in the real world, etc...


 * Out of everything said so far, I've heard a lot of trashing Ikeda and SGI, and I've heard alot of what SGI says about itself. But I've not heard much about what the temple really has to say for itself - what does it offer people? Are the people practicing with the temple actually happy? Are they gaining peace and benefit? Developing themselves, their compassion, their sense of empowerment? Are they engaed with helping to better the world? These are the things SGI talks about, and these are the things it does. These are the things it seeks to help people with, and this is what I see happening with people who practice with them. What does the temple stand for? What is happening for the people involved with it? Or maybe I just need to visit their article...


 * At any rate, I'd like to see the sources, so please do include anything you can find...


 * J: I think the book I listed is probably not available in libraries (unless a librarian has gone out of his/her way to get it) and it's not listed by Amazon.co.jp. I know it's available in temples, since it's published by Taiseki-ji. You must have read my message before I re-edited it (after dinner ) because I changed "sneak" to "slip"—as in "sneak/slip into a cafe for a cup of coffee." No hidden meaning intended, so sorry for being a bit facetious in my usage. I should have just written "drop by."
 * As to your second paragraph: Please have a look at my responses (ones starting with J4) on this page under the headings "More agreement" and "Even more agreement" (clicking on this links ought take you to them). Anyhow, I'm not against including information from or using biased sources, so long as the bias can be balanced out elsewhere in the article. So far, you seem to be a pretty sincere and reasonable person, so I'd like to work with you to see if we can't incorporate both perspectives so the article will conform to the NPOV ideal.
 * As for hearing about more about the temple and what it has to offer—if you haven't checked, I've worked quite a bit on the articles about Nichiren the person, Nichiren Buddhism (the general term for all schools and sects that claim roots in Nichiren's teachings), and Nichiren Shoshu. I've also developed the article on Taiseki-ji (and plan to do more when I have the time and energy) and initiated one on High Priest Nikken. I generally (as a matter of principle, more-or-less) don't touch the articles on SG/SGI (can't remember how I came to this one—I think I was following Gammadion after he posted some comments on one of the other talk pages) or the schools and sects I'm not familiar with, if not only because I don't want to get involved in psychologically taxing and fruitless editing wars.
 * The split between SG/SGI and NS, I think, should be handled in detail in a discrete article, with only passing reference and hyperlinks in the articles on SG/SGI and NS themselves. I welcome your thoughts on this. Sorry for any typos—this is on the fly. Jersey_Jim 15:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

We'll pick on your folks, you'll pick on ours: Harassment and other fun activities
J1: When people are directly encouraged to harass, boycott, tail others, film and photograph critics from the shadows, or even vandalize property, it is done behind closed doors, and those who receive such direct encouragement are known for their unconditional loyalty—I hesitate to write "carefully chosen" because I don't think their is any systemic process. And therein lies the tactic's effectiveness—it is almost impossible to prove any conspiracy since it will always boil down to one person's word against another's.


 * R: Once again, where's your source?


 * J2: See above. Btw, the press in the US has run articles on harassment cases and vandalism by SGI USA members (and NSA members before the name change), as well as the problems the Soka University in California caused, but these are things that get a half column in the corner of a local paper, not national coverage in the New York Times.


 * R: Again, these are horrible things. Sounds like the Klan or something. Are these things going on today in SG? Still waiting for your sources, please.


 * J4: Not so much as a few years ago, since most of the fervour has died down. We (my family and I)still get visits from "old friends" (they always come in pairs or threes, never alone) when SG has one of their campaigns going, but these are just regular members who don't really mean any harm (sometimes that's the saddest part about it—sometimes they really are old friends: the whole Nichiren Shoshu–SG/SGI split-up thing was kind of like a civil war for some. By that, I mean friends and families would go their separate ways over the whole thing).


 * R: Has it ever occurred to you that visits from "old friends" are actually just visits from old friends who remember you and care about you? I think you are right - this was like a civil war. But it sounds like temple folks think the war is still on, when its really over. I suspect the vistis you talk about are just an attempt to reconnect and heal wounds...I really hope you can rethink this...It is so sad to hear...--68.45.57.193 05:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * J5: By writing "these are just regular members who don't really mean any harm," I was distinguishing between those who intentionally harass and those who mean no harm; nonetheless, the "old friends" come only when SG has some sort of campaign running, and invitations to come around for coffee without dangling on the arm of a senior leader or a bunch of other members in tow are always refused with a terrified look. Gimme a break, Rube; I wasn't born yesterday, and I'm not a cynic.  Jersey_Jim 16:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R: But, J, what do you expect?!? Look at how they are talked about! Look at how you yourself talk about SGI people - your "old friends," no less! I gotta tell you, if it were me, and I were an old friend of yours (I mean in the real world as opposed to wikiworld ;-]), I'd be a little hesitant to "come around," too! But at least it sounds like you probably miss them as much as they probably miss you.


 * R: But back to the point - look at how you guys talk about SGIers. Its really not fair to also accuse them because they are wary of approaching someone/people who openly and even in a public forum "despises" all that they believe in...There is a lot of villifying going on, Jim, but its not just all one sided. On the one hand temple people accuse SGI of villifying the temple -- but if you look at it, SGI members as well as leadership are also constantly being attacked -- and not just by the leadership, but by the temple members themselves, as well.


 * R: I mean, ask yourself, how do you even know its a "campaign" anyway, if you aren't even willing to talk to them? And look at you - you might not be approaching them "dangling on the arm of a senior leader or a bunch of other members in tow" but why would you need to? You carry so much arsenal around in your mind already!


 * R: When I look at the Nichiren Shoshu stuff, I see SGI people protesting and trying to be heard, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone blast the temple for its very existance the way that SGI-ers get blasted, routinely, and this on pages that could even be considered their "territory," so to speak. I may be wrong, but that's all I've seen, anyways...


 * R: And, now, you know I am not a fan of the anectdotal, but even one of you guys said its ok in the discussion area, and so, I also reference my one time interaction with a perfect stranger, during the middle of a peace rally (no less!) I was glad and excited and happy to have bumped into someone who even knew what the hell those weird little words on my backpack meant! I thought he would have been just as excited as I -- but instead, the first thing he asked me was if I was with SGI, and when I said yes, he was, literally, ready to attack me! I mean I got scared! Because he was freakin' scary! And I was pretty much of a newbie at that point, I hardly even knew about any of this stuff. I didn't have a whole "Beware the Temple People! Reek! Reek! Reek! Reek!" thing going for me (that was a "Psycho!" movie trailer reference there, btw.). I mean, I knew of the split, and had a basic grasp of it, (enough at that point to know that it was way too yucky to get too deep into, and to be embarassed that it was even there), but honestly, if it hadn't been for my positive experience with SGIers, he would have turned me off of nam myoho renge kyo for good, right then and there.


 * R:And, you know, that is really the saddest part of it all -- all of this, me and my bit included, is probably a total turn off to so many people. And I don't know about Shoshu, but I do know about SGI - and it is a good place to be. It's a shame that people might be scared off. And, worse, because it is such a disservice to Nichiren and to Shakyamuni. But for my part, I feel, not to say anything and to just let all this keep going on unanswered, that would be wrong, too. - R 21 nOVEMBER


 * Note to J: Not a problem. Deleted the comment, though, hope you don't mind. Put it back if that's not appropriate to remove, for some reason. - R --70.111.27.59 04:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Nasty sides, Googits, and media biases
J1: In the latest revision of the article, someone wrote that a quick Google search (which, by definition, should not be definitive) shows that none of the accusations against SG/SGI/Pres. Ikeda (another article) has been proven or written up in the mainstream press. I wonder was this person considers "mainstream": SG/SGI/Ikeda's scandals appear frequently in the Japanese media, both printed and broadcast, although ever since Komeito has been part of the government, this has been toned down. Another thing to consider here is the tremendous fear Japanese businesses (including the media) have of SG, because a quiet call by SG for its members to boycott a business or product (including a publication) can have tremendous ramifications. I would have to dig out citations to be specific, but just a few years ago a scandal surfaced in Japan in which SG members were being encouraged to boycott book stores that carried publications SG didn't like—which means ones that were credibly critical of the organization or its leadership.


 * R: The quote was that it was "very little" in the mainstream, first of all. Second, mainstream means what is most representative of the population's major magazine, news, journals, etc. I used a service called Ebscohost for that, although there is one I prefer called Proquest which you might checkout. However, I am also able to search international news through a service called COuntry Watch (available through most public library online services) which cover "mainstream" pubs for those areas. In Japanese news there was much reference to SG and New Komeito, but not much else, although the one or two article from the Japan Times that I cited above came from that search.


 * J2: The nasty side of Soka Gakkai doesn't appear much in the English press in Japan because it's not a subject of interest to those papers' readers, least of all the Japan Times. Further, in Japan, some of these things are such common knowledge that they are not even seen as worthy of mention in the Japanese press. And the part of the press that does pick up on these things is not the newspapers (especially not the Mainichi, considering what that company has to loose if it angers SGI: Mainichi's printing plants are where SG's Seikyo Shimbun [ca. 5 million copies daily] are printed!), but the magazines. Some of these are little more than scandal sheets with glossy covers, but that can't be said of Bungei Shunju, Shincho, and AERA, which Gakkai members accuse of engaging in "third-rate yellow journalism" (all three, and especially the first two, are known for their investigative journalism on par with that of The Washington Post or Germany's Der Spiegel), but they run or have run plenty on SG/SGI. But as I wrote earlier, articles critical of SG/SGI have all but disappeared since Komeito joined the governing coalition. In Japan, the cause-and-effect relationship is something of an open secret.


 * R: Thanks for the tutorial on Japanese and English news - I certainly believe that its is as susceptable as ours is to corruption and spinelessness. I am always interested in these things. But I still would like the sources, please. If you are saying now that Komeito is responsible for this shift, and that it has nothing at all to do with the changes in the organization, there must still be something out there you can point me to that supports your claims. Again, you needn't worry yourself with my ability to read Japanese. Just the sources, please.


 * J4: I'm not citing sources again, but: A correlation between the press's falling silent with critical articles on SG/SGI and its officers has been mooted in the Japanese monthly magazines (not to mention the weeklies) ever since it happened. I don't have any sources at hand. :( All protestation to the contrary by SG and Komeito notwithstanding, the notion that the two are unrelated and that SG exerts no undue influence over Komeito is, given the realities of the Komeito, untenable: Komeito is bankrolled by SG, SG members almost unanimously support it (at least ostensibly), SG members are just about the only people who electioneer for it, and almost all the party's officials and parliamentarians are SG members. There are some non-members, such as the previous health minister who, as a non-member, was the only Komeito person acceptable to the rest of Japan's political spectrum for the position precisely because he wasn't SG.

J1: In English, Newsweek, Time, and (most recently) Forbes have run critical articles on SG or Ikeda going as far back as at least 1979, and London's The Economist used to frequently refer sarcastically to the Clean Government Party as (for example) "the misnamed Clean Government Party" or "the anything but Clean Government Party," though this also has ceased since the party became part of the governing coalition. The Guardian also run a couple of choice pieces, but it's been a long time and they might not be available online (one that I remember particularly well was by Polly Toynbee, Arnold's grand-daughter—the book Choose Life, though available, does not seem to be in print, either; wonder why not).


 * R: What I said above. But I do applaud you for finally pointing to some sources. Now just provide dates, issues, pages, perhaps a quote or two and we can have a real debate. But aside from that, you must also note that currency is one of the criteria for establishing authority, relevance, reliability etc. For example, if you recall, this stupid war we are in was in some part argued for by using a 12 year old journal article to justify the need for the war. That was wrong and a mistake that has cost many many people their lives. In that case it was done purposely. But it is just as tragic when it is done out of ignorance. So, you see currency is an important aspect of evaluating your sources.


 * J2: Ahem. So now that I've named some sources, the red herrings are coming out. Bad example. SG/SGI's problems started many years ago—some detractors say that their roots are embedded in mistakes Josei Toda or even Tsunesaburo Makiguchi made, but personally I don't know. Anyhow, my point is that old sources are just as good as new ones for something with a history this long. Especially given SG/SGI's talent for marginalizing or silencing its critics, the absence of "current" sources should not be taken as a sign of lack of credibility. I would like to note that very few (probably no) neutral sources are available that substantiate SG/SGI's history and SG/SGI tell it. Almost all available materials favorable to SG/SGI are traceable right back to SG/SGI's doorstep, in the sense that those behind the materials will have some sort of vested, including financial, interest in having SG/SGI/Ikeda seen in only a favorable light.


 * R: I am aware of these articles - I told you, I already researched this, and I actually had came across them myself. But I am not about to make another man's argument for him. That's why I am asking for YOU to provide citations. Then we can discuss. Maybe you will source me into silence. That is fine. But I'd rather be sourced into silence with a strong argument than bullied into it by someone's strong opinion and shocking revelations. As for neutral sources, I would just ask that you again check some of those that I have cited here and elsewhere. There are several, (though not more than that, not that I have been able to find, anyways) in English that give enough of a variety of perspectives to make it worth your while.


 * As for currency, in a historical survey, like a book, that may be true. But the point of this particular excercise is not an historical survey. An encyclopedic entry's purpose is to give an overview and introduction, with an eye towards providing a neutral (meaning both sides told) intro to the history, for the purpose of arounsing and inspiring the reader to seek out the historical surveyson his or her own. In this case, currency of the material has relevance - always has relevance. However, if you feel it is necessary to include historical stuff, then do so -- but you must put it in that context. You can't present the historical articles as if they are speaking of current affiars. You must say "Historically speaking..." and, "Currently..."

Some agreement
J4: I agree totally with you when you write "An encyclopedic entry's purpose is to give an overview and introduction, with an eye towards providing a neutral (meaning both sides told) intro to the history, for the purpose of arousing and inspiring the reader to seek out the historical surveys on his or her own." See below, following another one of your paragraphs that I concur with to a degree.


 * R: The problem is in statements like this one: "Especially given SG/SGI's talent for marginalizing or silencing its critics, the absence of "current" sources should not be taken as a sign of lack of credibility." Its just not useful or helpful to make a statement like that when you are speaking to a broad audience -- we don't have your experience, so you have to give us some kind of source for such claims. I recognize that you think this is difficult to do - but it is up to you to make that argument and find a way to do it other than by verbally bullying and intimidating people with your 'years o experience living in Japan' That has some value, granted, but it is limited. Especially with the size, scope, and seriousness of the accussations you are making. Gotta cite your sources.

J: My intent is not to bully, but to give you an idea of my background and to assure you that I'm not writing from the hip or being off-the-wall. Also, please distinguish between what I write here and information I've put into the article.

More agreement
R: And while I am on that note, even when you are using a mainstream source, you need to put it in perspective - for example, its well known (or should be by now,) that the way FOXnews, CNN, BBC, ABC etc, or, the NYT, NY Post, and the Wall Street Journal, or Time and Newsweek, US News and World, and the Economist and Forbes, cover a story is going to vary - why? Because of corporate sponsorship, target audience, etc. That is why we have to work at this - read them all, evaluate where they are coming from, and come to our conclusions...It is no different in Japan. Evaluate the sources. Then share them with us, so we can get some perspective for ourselves.


 * J2: I'm quite well aware of these caveats, and suggest people apply them to non-mainstream sources as well. Have you investigated your own sources in the same way? For all I can tell, most of your additions to the article are very similar to what's available from SG/SGI sources.


 * R: Absolutely, I have. And if you read my comments, you will find that I will cite my concerns if I have them. As for the info I added to the article, I synthesized from several different sources -- namely the books I cited at the bottom, under "sources", articles that I have read and cited elsewhere in these discussions, as well as SGI and SG sites. This idea that you can't cite SG or SGI is just wrong. Its all about balance.


 * J4: OK, I'll buy into this one—mainly because I agree. More about this below.

You can find the short block of text on legal issues, which previously interrupted the flow here, at Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive07.

Scratching deeper
J1: If a person is serious about writing about SG, SGI, or Ikeda, he or she must do much more than just scratch the surface—and also be ready for a long, hard slog. Getting your edits repeatedly deleted is small stuff (and, if you ask me, evidence enough that they contain an element of truth) compared to what you'd experience if you were in, say, Japan, where there are lots of SG/SGI members around. A person who officially leaves the organization must also be prepared to face harassment (at the least), especially if the person chooses to join a temple group.


 * R: Yes indeed, if anyone wants to write about anything, and have it included in an encyclopedic forum, one aught to be prepared to do more than "scratch the surface". And one must be prepared to cite there sources, so others may have the opptortunity to review them for themselves. As for your assumption about deletions (I knew you'd try to pull that on me!) perhaps it just means that you are getting it wrong, aren't writing it well, are imposing your biases, or you just have grammatical or factual errors. Ever think if that, smarty?


 * J2: Yes, I always look for such things. I don't recall that any of your (Ruby's) deletions were of the nature that I was criticizing. I was referring to the repeated deletion of links to critical sites and such. Btw, this—plus deletion of factual material—happens in all articles related to SG/SGI; but it is also not unusual in any article on something politically or ideologically (and I include religion here) charged. (As an aside, I read several of the Wikipedias, and it seems to happen regardless of language, too. Sometimes the exchanges on the Japanese edition are so childish they're funny!)


 * R: Glad to hear it. I have tried. I wonder if it would ever be possible to let each group just right its own article? Or have a section under each in which the other offers its version? I mean, I was reading this one again, and when I go to the excommunication, it was so clearly one sided -- I thought, "isn't this supposed to be an SGI site? THis sounds like it is a Nichiren Shoshu site." I mean it IS ridiculous - maybe we should just let the SGI page tell its own story, and let Nichiren Shosu tell its own? Even as I say this though, I have to admit, I actually learned something about Nichiren Shoshu's perspective. What it revealed most to me, however, is HOW radically everything hinges on what one believes Nichiren meant - if you believe he meant no authority, then you are an SGIer, if you believe in Shoshu's authority is an acceptable form of authority, then it obviously looks like SGI has been a "bad boy", like the rebel son in a repressive and codependent family.

Even more agreement (!)
J4: This is your paragraph that raises some really good points. If I may:
 * I [R] wonder if it would ever be possible to let each group just right its own article? Or have a section under each in which the other offers its version?
 * I [J] have been wondering the same thing for a while (not only about this article, but several others too). I also wonder how pracitcal it is; nonetheless, it might be worth giving it a try. I mean, for disinterested parties, a proper overview of the antagonists' respective views is indispensible for getting the full picture. What we need to be careful about is getting too worked up over what the other has said, as well as eschew the urge to get nasty with each other.


 * What it revealed most to me, however, is HOW radically everything hinges on what one believes Nichiren meant[.]
 * Very true. I all splits like this, though, it usually boils down to one interpretation against another. Often, if you (generic you) look at both interpretations, you start to wonder what all the fuss is about.

I may be getting off track here, but let me explain: from my perspective, SG/SGI framed the story so that it would appear that they were the victims of oppressive authoritarianism, but I have yet to see them define what that authoritarianism was. The "authoritarian" charges appeared to me to be a red herring to divert attention from legitimate complaints that the priesthood had about subtle changes SG was making to traditional NS teachings: saying that Human Revolution was equal to (or even to supplant) the gosho; encouraging unconditional adoration of Daisaku Ikeda; the constant, tacit pressure to make monetary donations (don't know how this is in SGI-USA, but people have been known to cash in insurance policies and go into debt to be able to donate cash for kōfu kikin [広布基金]), the notion that campaigning for Komeito was part of Buddhist practice, and other such things. Jim_Lockhart 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * […]if you believe he meant no authority, then you are an SGIer, if you believe in Shoshu's authority is an acceptable form of authority, then it obviously looks like SGI has been a "bad boy"….
 * On a purely rational plane: Yes, this is true. On a not-so-rational one: I'm one who believes he did mean a degree of authority, and that the authority of the priesthood is legitimate; however, in my opinion, what SG/SGI are calling "authority" and "authoritarian" are not that at all.


 * I hear what you are saying, but I can't agree. At least that's not how it is since I've been around, and that is relatively briefly at just about 4 or is it 5?practicing, and about 6 years of reflection and research, etc., before that. From my perspective, SG/SGI has really just been all about helping people become free, empowered, happy, ever since the beginning back in the 1930s. Nichiren's writings and the Lotus Sutra are all ultimately about the power of the Buddha nature [- ie, the Self in harmony with the universe (for lack of a better word)], which is all about self development, self empowerment, active engagement in society, etc. If you look at it, the times when Makiguchi, Toda and Ikeda get in trouble are always times when they are trying to bring this message to light. I don't see them as "victims of oppressive authoritarianism" at all, but rather as a few basically regular men, inspired by this practice to go about the work of standing up for themselves and encouraging other human beings to do the same. Whenever they thought there was a conflict there, and that perhaps the people were being discouraged from seeing themselves as powerfully as Nichiren and Shakyamuni intended, they spoke up. Sometimes, Nichiren Shoshu High Priests shared this interpretation. Sometimes they didn't. The current High Priest obviously does not, and has made it very clear just how much so.


 * As for Human Revolution, no, it is not "equal to or a replacement for" the Gosho (Where do you get this stuff??) However, it is kind of a catchy phrase for what the Gosho pretty much teaches people how to do, and what the Lotus Sutra says we have the capability to do.


 * "Unconditional adoration?" Donations? Again, maybe SG is something different, but SGI is not like that. How do you get to these ideas? The whole idea is NOT to "adore" anyone, especially not just because they say to. Isn't that the High Priest's line, anyway? Isn't it he that institutes himself between the person and his/her enlightenment? Isn't it the prieshood that established the whole thing of you can't get enlightened except through him? As for donations, there is an annual drive. You can do it or not. Of course, there is a need for money -- nothing comes free. But compared to a basket being shoved in my face with the peer pressure of everyone around you seeing not only IF you gave, but HOW MUCH you gave, this once a year request is like PBS or WBAI -- you keep watching/listening for as long as you can without paying a red cent, until you just feel so guilty for all the good stuff you are getting out of it that you just have to give a little something back. Please. But alot of what you just said really gets back to a fundamental difference between SG/SGI and other religions -- I mean who the hell cashes in an insurance policy to give to any relgion or institution??? What the hell?!? In my experience, it is all about being responsible for your own life -- if you do something like that, then, well...you haven't really been listening to what the practice is about! As for pressure to do something like that, that just doesn't exist. At least not where I am from.


 * But now, the real question: I can see that Nichiren could approve of a priesthood - he did, in fact. That was the whole point of Nikko and co. A priesthood is fine, EXCEPT when it stopped serving the people. He was pretty clear that if a priest or order became a tool for its own aggrandisement or power, or for that of the government, then it is no longer valid, no longer practicing the true teaching. That was all that Nichiren was about, for pete's sake. How do you come to see the priesthood as legitimate under these circumstances? - Ruby PS: Good night for the second time, and this time I really mean it--70.111.27.59 07:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * J6: You ask where I get all this stuff: It all happened. For instance, in the mid 1970s, members were told that they didn't really need to study the gosho anymore because President Ikeda's Human Revolution was the "gosho of today" or the "gosho for modern humanity." Likewise with the other stuff I mentioned: it happened, any in some cases still happens.


 * But I think this exchange is getting beyond the proper scope for this talk page because it's not contributing anything to making the article better. (There is a separate Wiki area in the works for this sort of debate, so if you enjoy it, maybe you can visit there.) I will respond to some of your other questions (such as how people can be reading the same gosho/Lotus Sutra but be coming to such different conclusions) on this page, but I don't intend to extend this exchange any further; it's getting too circuitous and further and further away from the objective of writing a balanced article. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R: Although I like the idea of the WikiForum (or whatever) I hope it will still have a role in developing the actual stories. I still think its been a very useful exchange, and one that is helping to find neutral territory. For example, some of the things that have come of this discussion, which I think are now being reflected in the article, is the importance of currency, context and citations.


 * It is important to note that much of some people's reactions were based on personal experiences that happened, say, "in the 70s," for instance (currency). In the article, this can be neutralized by simply stating that "in the past, such and such is reported to have happened..." (context) but it is even more powerful if it is cited from a source tha others can get access to (even if it might be difficult for them). In this case, the Tricycle magazine article, (April '01 I think?) cited fully elswehere in all of this discussion, makes the point that there was a much more assertive approach to shakabuku at that time. That would be fine, and acceptable to any reader, I think, without compromising the neutrality of the article.


 * Similarly, from this discussion, another point of context has to do with distinguishing between SG and SGI and Nichiren Shoshu. In the following comment, it is obvious how it becomes very tricky, and what is really just a reflection of our hazy view and lack of good language for describing the situation makes it easy for people to misinterpret the intent of the writer. In one section that I've been looking at as well, I edited the first couple of sentences to try to address this person's comment:


 * "< ! -- As SGI is no longer associated with Nichiren Shoshu, it would be unfair to identify SGI's Buddhism with Nichiren Shoshu; likewise, it is unfair to imply that SGI's is the *only* form of Nichiren Buddhism! -- > ."


 * It reads now: "Since SGI was initially affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu, this is the form which continues to be associated with SGI, for better or worse. However, as SGI continues to grow, it and the school of Nichiren Shoshu are becoming more and more distinct from one another. Whether this will lead to an entirely new form of Nichiren Buddhism, or already is, remains to be seen." I think this fairly addresses the concern, by putting it all in context by basically laying out what is happening. I hope you agree, and like the change. Now, if I could, I['d prefer to site something on that, but I haven't come across anything. None the less, given the discussion we have had, it is pretty fair assessment that I don't think anyone would have a real problem with. Anyone else have any thoughts?


 * Finally, with regard to your comment that this is getting "circuitous", I am not sure what you mean. From my standpoint, I see that you have made frank statements from your perspective, about the intentions and goals of a number of people. But that is really just one perspective, one of many possible readings of an experience. We don't have the voices of those friends here to say what they were really feeling, what happened from their perspective, or why they acted as they did. You view might be right -- but if an article is to have a sense of neutrality, then it is important to be able to set aside ones own views for the moment, and look at the same set of circumstances from other points of view.


 * In this case, there seems to be an accepted bias that says "everything SGIers do is deceitful and cultish" and that colors both the experience of events, and also how they are written about. I have merely pointed out another perspective on the events you described. From this perspective, "SGIers are concerned about their old friends, but also leary of them, and for good reason." I don't see that as circuitous, rather its just about trying to have an open dialog, and trying to be open to other ways of seeing things. Only in this way can we possbily be able to speak from the middleway (no pun intended), and with objectivity about a thing. The hope is that by having this kind of dialog, perhaps some of the bias will be softened, so that a more objective report can be acheived.


 * That is not to say that what you say happened didn't happen, but just that in writing about the whole thing, its important to set that aside for the moment. For example, when I gave my view of the experience with a Nichiren Shoshu person, if I could not put aside that experience, I would feel completely entitled in my iew of things, and feel completely confident in writing something that was very derogatory and suspicious about all of Nichiren Shoshu. That, of course, would not be fair or objective. THat said, if you can find something that substantiates and supports your position, then, by all means, go ahead and cite it. It may still not be The Reality but at least it would give people something to look back at for themselves.


 * It is my intention to have shown that in fact, this dialog DOES and HAS helped improve tha article, so I still think it is ok given this particular topic, but if its deemed out of bounds, of course we'll have to go with the ruling, (BTW -- is there some kind of referee in these things, anyway? Anyone we can appeal to?) Anyway, either way, I hope this has been helful, and I'll look for you in the "forum" - Ruby--70.111.27.59 06:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And just one last point in reference to the various points of discussion, you said: "I'm one who believes he did mean a degree of authority, and that the authority of the priesthood is legitimate; however, in my opinion, what SG/SGI are calling "authority" and "authoritarian" are not that at all. "


 * First, I'll grant that maybe the word "authoritatrian" is not exactly the most precise word to use. But I think the following make it clear where the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu differ, and why the SGI takes the position it has. According to World Tribune, March 26, 1999 Jeff Farr writes in an article entirled; [http://www.sokaspirit.org/faq/how_can_we_say.shtml How Can We Say for Sure That the SGI Is Right?} reprinted at www.sokaspirit.org


 * "The Daishonin states in "Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life" that "Shakyamuni who attained enlightenment countless aeons ago, the Lotus Sutra which leads all people to Buddhahood, and we ordinary human beings are in no way different or separate from each other" (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, p. 216).":


 * "In "Letter to Niike," he says, "becoming a Buddha is nothing extraordinary. If you chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with your whole heart, you will naturally become endowed with the Buddha's thirty-two features and eighty characteristics. As the sutra says, 'hoping to make all persons equal to me, without any distinction between us,' you can readily become as noble a Buddha as Shakyamuni." (WND, p. 1030)."


 * "The Daishonin's writings are full of passages like these that declare we are Buddhas. The SGI puts these passages into practice, sharing this message with the world."


 * "Nichiren Shoshu's message, by contrast, is that we have to have priests - especially the high priest - to attain Buddhahood. We are incapable of doing it on our own, incomplete without that priestly intervention. But this idea is found nowhere in the Daishonin's writings. It's at odds with the Daishonin's writings, almost all of which were written to ordinary people, not to priests. Yet the priests suggest that Nikken is the only real Buddha, that he's the only one who can really understand this Buddhism, that ordinary people never can..."


 * From what I have seen, it looks like that "message" really came into play in 1991, the year of the split, when the following note was issued to Soka Gakkai. It said:
 * " 1.  The {high priest} as the one and only recipient of the heritage or lifeblood should be viewed as an entity of veneration, inseparable from the Dai-Gohonzon of the high sanctuary.
 * 2. Faith toward these two fundamentals [meaning the Gohonzon and the high priest] must be absolute.
 * 3. The true Buddha, the Daishonin, the Dai-Gohonzon of the high sanctuary, and the successive high priests are all essentially one inseparable object of worship. (Dai-Nichiren, Sept. 1991)"


 * From the Nichiren Shoshu site, it says :


 * 1), the priests who correctly protect and transmit the True Law of Nichiren Daishonin and
 * 2), the lay believers who correctly practice this Buddhist Law expounded by Nichiren Daishonin. It is only when the laity and the priesthood unite, cooperating in mutual effort toward the propagation of this faith that we achieve true world Kosen-Rufu."


 * and in another Nichiren Shoshu site site it explains the High Priest's role in this way:
 * "Although the High Priest is not viewed as equal to Nichiren Daishonin, who alone is revered as One with the Law, the High Priest is considered to be the single person who possesses the omniscient perspective of the correct teachings, and the only one who can lead in a way that exactly corresponds with the compassionate direction of the Founder. He also ensures that each Gohonzon issued to new believers is endowed with the "mind and heart of Nichiren" and that the "mind and heart" is filtered to the priesthood, who thereby propagate the teachings in the context of their individual capacities. It is for these reasons that the successive lineage of High Priests is considered one of the Three Treasures of Nichiren Shoshu.(17)"


 * Given the wealth of documenataion from Nichiren in which he says time and again that all are equal, none are separate or distinct, etc., and the Lotus Sutra's absolute statement that all are equal, how does the priesthood come to, first, elevate Nichiren as above all people and separate from them, second, deny their own inherent equality, and third, insert themselves between each person and his or her ability to acheive enlightenment? What reason is there for this?


 * But further, given that Nichiren Daishonin also writes, "If even a good monk sees someone destroying the teaching and disregards him, failing to reproach him, to oust him, or to punish him for his offense, then you should realize that that monk is betraying the Buddha's teaching. But if he ousts the destroyer of the Law, reproaches him, or punishes him, then he is my disciple and a true voice-hearer "(On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, pp. 17-18). How does one justify accepting and supporting the priesthood's position? That's it in a really big nutshell...Please help me to understand - how can this be? --70.111.27.59 06:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC) - R

Overreactions and misunderstandings
R: As far as leaving a temple group, all I can say is this - I met one temple person in my life, and when he realized I was SGI, he welled up, seething with visual hatred and vitriol. He wanted to take my little nam myoho renge kyo card He cursed me and accused me, and knew nothing of me. So they are mighty pissed. But from my experience, I am way more concerned about them than they should be about me. And this was at a peace rally! The March 15 in NYC of all places! What a bummer!


 * J2: I think you mean "leaving [SG] for a temple group," right? Anyhow, having been on the recieving end of Soka Gakkai harassment (even had to move house to get away from it: YMD tailing my wife, phone calls advising me "be sure I found a safe route to school" for my kids [the caller should have at least disguised his voice!], and other such shenanigans), I can understand a temple member's overreaction if he or she were ex-SG. I assume that some of Gammodian's overreactions are similarly rooted.


 * R: No, I'm not sure what I meant! I'm lost in the conversation a bit...and I am not sure what you neamt either, actually. I just was trying to convey that I am happy in SGI, as is everyone else I know from SGI, and that the one person I ever met who was a temple member was frighteningly NOT ok or happy. And though I don't usually make decisions based on one experience or exchange, that one pretty much freaked me out.


 * As for your family and all of that, (you are talking SG, right?) that's unacceptable. Hard to believe based onmy experience with SGI, though. But here again, while I don't mean to underscore or disrespect your experience, it would be helpful to dredge up something to cite about this kind of thing. It could only improve your argument and support your reality, and it would be the responsible thing to do for the sake of other people.


 * J4: Yup, talking about SG. I understand that you mean no disrespect, and thanks for your kind thoughts. :)


 * R: As for Japan - that sucks if true. But, um, you haven't given me any sources or citations, so I can't really know that for sure.


 * J2: As I wrote, a lot is personal experience. And some things are so pervasive here that they're like air—and you're right, they suck. In some ways they probably sound incredible to an American, because some of the things people would never get away with in the US because it's so against the prevailing mentality. But not so in Japan.

Discussion about legality of methods in some countries
(Inserted from before Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive06

A job for Magnum PI?
R: And by the way " Sending in private investigators to find out who said what in a public discussion meeting? WHAT pray tell are you talking about???


 * J2: I don't follow you on your final paragraph, so you must be confusing something someone else wrote with something of mine. I know nothing about "[s]ending in private investigators to find out who said what in a public discussion meeting."


 * Gammadion: It was something of mine, not Jim's. I was talking about discussion meetings held by SGI opened to the public. I wonder who in hell dissected my paragraph? *Raises hackles and shows teeth* Careless words are somethings said in public-attended meetings that could be considered criminal based on religious-equality laws. That's why I recommend that private investigators be sent in to record such illegals acts by senior leaders which reflects badly on SGI on the whole.Gammadion 01:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * J3: Thanks for the clarification. Re: "could be considered criminal based on religious-equality laws": What country are we talking about here? I know that some countries in S.E. Asia (I think Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia) have such laws. Could you explain? Those laws might even be worth a discrete article themselves. Jim_Lockhart 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * G2: Such laws in South East Asia are commonly classified under Internal Security Act(s). I do not understand your suggestion of letting the above mentioned law having a discrete article all by themselves. By the way, I am kind of busy now so I will try bring an example of the law. CiaoGammadion 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * J5: Ah ha, that's what I thought (about the laws). By discrete article, I meant a separate article about the laws themselves (not necessarily in any connection with the SGI article). If one doesn't already exist, it would likely consist of a description of the laws, when and why they were enacted, what effects they have had on their societies, and any pros and cons to them. With such an article available for readers to refer to, if you were to write something to the effect of "some of these activities potentially violate the Internal Security Laws of Country XXX for their potential to incite religious conflict and disrupt social cohesion". I have to get back to work, too… Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 07:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Legality

 * G3: Apologies, the I.S.A/ Public Order is the enforcement act of the law, not the law statute itself. By the way, it's not religious equality but Religious Harmony Act(circa 1958). I will be using Singapore's Statutes for illustration:
 * any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution or any member thereof has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts:


 * (a) causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;


 * Note that both Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist Association and SGI-Singapore (SSA) are registered religious groups in Singapore and that in discussion meetings that do involve the public in attendance, each group has been accusing each other of hoodwinking its members on wrongful behaviour of its leaders, thus generating a great deal of ill-will towards each other.


 * What this shows is that there is a lot to blame legally and not one group is giving way.-Gammadion 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Accessing court documents
J3: In your position as a librarian, can you access court decisions online?


 * R: I could only suggest where to go -- services like Lexis or Westlaw can provide court decisions, although I am not sure if they provide international law. But there is sure to be an international or Japanese equivalent. Unfortunately, I am a public and school librarian -- we can't afford those services! One could, however, go to a law library at any fairly large law firm and request that they do a search for you - it would cost you to print it, but probably not that much. Back in my orporate days, about 15 years ag, it would cost about $18 for a doc about 25 pages or so. Or one could go to an academic (university) library and ask for it. If they've got a law school, they've got these services. And of course, through interlibrary loan services, you or I - anyone, really, can get access to a lot from libraries across the state, or even the country -- but you need some kind of citations (or at least a title or author or something to help narrow the field) to get them.


 * J4: The reason I asked... Been called for dinner. Let me get back to this later. [never got back!]

Nichiren Buddhism, Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, and SG/SGI
J1: Also, a note on references to Nichiren Buddhism: SG/SGI practice a (some would say twisted) form of Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, so writing just Nichiren Buddhism can be slightly misleading. Though I'm sure Nichiren Shoshu certainly no longer wants itself associated with SG (and SG certainly doesn't want to be associated with NS, but for obviously different reasons), I think it's important to maintain the distinction.


 * R: True. SGI practices Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren Shoshu practices Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism. And you know, I know you are wed to your point of view - but would you please resist the urge? What good does it say to say "some woud say a "twisted form?" " When others could just as easily say "NS practices a "twisted form"" as well. Where does that get us? - R


 * J2: SGI's practice originated in Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, and spreading Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism was the stated purpose of Soka Gakkai until it changed its kisoku and kaisoku in—when was it, 2002? SG/SGI has its own form of Nichiren Buddhism now, perhaps; but only after it deviated from the Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism it was founded to spread. (Sources: the pre-change Soka Gakkai Bylaws; also, a series of books called Toda Josei Zenshu [The complete works of Josei Toda]. English sources include Fundamentals of Buddhism by Yasuji Kirimura, NSIC, rev. ed. 1984.)


 * R: THanks for the cites. I will see if I can get ahold of them.


 * J2 (con'd):One of SG's deviations is its overemphasis on the mentor-disciple (they used to call it "master-disciple") relationship between members and Daisaku Ikeda, which is a twisting of shitei sōtai, a concept about the relationship between teachers (priests) and their followers.


 * The whole problem is actually a fairly complicated and goes far beyond just this, but my point is that no one will get a clear, overall picture without delving into more than just what SGI wants them to know. They owe it to themselves to go further.


 * Have fun—–and, like, peace, man, y'know?  Gotta run (but not for cover), Jim_Lockhart 16:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC) (J2 entries)


 * R:Don't opinions differ as to whether or not it was founded to spread Nichiren Shoshu or not? But either way, what it is now is what it is now, and that should be valid. It is no longer a part of Nichiren Shoshu, NS doesn't want it back, and frankly, it looks like it has been a great benefit for SGI and its practioners....and it certainly looks like SGI isn't looking back. Perhaps the birth was painful - but now its on its own,no?


 * J4: Opinions don't (or shouldn't) differ as to whether it was founded to spread Nichiren Shoshu, because at the time of Soka Gakkai's incorporation in 1952, that was its stated purpose. Josei Toda told the Head Temple that he wanted to independently incorporate Soka Gakkai so as to better "protect the Head Temple (sōhonzan gego [総本山外護])" and to "faciliate propagation" and, as a condition for the Head Temple's allowing Soka Gakkai to incorporate independently, he promised to uphold the following three principles:
 * Have all new converts join a local temple congregation
 * Observe and uphold the teachings, doctrines, and practices of the Head Temple
 * Observe the Three Treasures as defined by Nichiren Shoshu


 * R: Soka Gakkai was founded as the Soka Kyokai Gakkai in 1930. After the war, Toda dropped the Kyokai aspect, and Soka Gakkai came into being under Josei Toda, for the purpose of spreading Nichiren's message - and they began working with the temple. It was not founded to serve Nichiren Shoshu, it was founded to support the laiety. Historically, Toda and Makiguchi held to Nichiren Daishonin's teachings above all else, embracing from the beginning the firm and oft repeated position that each human being was equally endowed with the potential for buddhahood (based on the Lotus Sutra) meaning that there was no difference between a layman and a priest. Because of this, there were several points in time in which they and the priesthood of Nichiren Shoshu came into conflict. For example, when Makiguchi and Toda opposed the miltaristic regime, not only because it sought to oppress the people, but also because of it's imposition of Shinto as a state religion. How does the temple explain its period of cooperation with the military regime at that time? How does it explain the division between it and Soka Gakkai at that time?


 * J4 (con'd):"Observe" means, of course, "not deviate from," and "Head Temple" is synonymous with Nichiren Shoshu. These three principles were also written into SG's bylaws (rules of incorporation), so maybe you can get hold of a copy of them.


 * R: So, in other words, because Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda dared to question the authorities in Nichiren Shoshu, because they did not submit to the "Head Temple" and they "deviated from" the path that the Head Temple wanted them to take, this was there crime?


 * J4 (con'd):Yes, neither wants the other anymore; and neither should be trying to rewrite history to suit itself. Such is the way of divorces.
 * [Please note that this paragraph is not answering "yes" to R's question in the immediately preceding paragraph.]Jersey_Jim 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R: Yes, divorce is horrible. But it isn't necessarily always the way that both parties go about trying to rewrite history...sometimes, one party trys their best to be civil, and work things out civilly, but its just not possible to...sometimes parties grow apart. Sometimes, the break up is actually a good thing -- a needed thing --a freeing thing; and because of it, the parties can move on and make a better life for themselves. But sometimes, only one party is able to do that; while the other party holds the grudge forever, and never really gets over it...Hmmm... -R --68.45.57.193 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R: Oh, and one other thing. The "parents" may not be able to live together anymore, but that doesn't mean they don't care for the "children" (so to speak). In other words, Nichiren Shoshu and SG/SGI have split up -- but how well have the members been cared for in each situation? The members in SGI feel cared for and supported -- and/but they miss their friends who are with Nichiren Shoshu. It will be pretty impossible to convince them of this, of course, but it is true. I don't know how welcome an SGI member would be in a temple (since you said they'd have to "sneak in" I guess they not very, actually) but I am pretty sure if a temple member showed up at an SGI Center, s/he'd be cared for and welcomed - even if they didn't want to join SGI. -R --68.45.57.193 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * J4 (con'd):'Nuff for today. Jim_Lockhart 16:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * J5: This is getting really involved. I'm quite aware of the history of Soka Gakkai, its beginnings as Soka Kyoiku Gakkai, Messrs. Makiguchi's and Toda's imprisonments, and so on. The bit about Nichiren Shoshu cooperating with the military authorities is an SG(I) story and simply isn't true. 62nd High Priest Nikkyo even died in a fire started by the military people who had conscripted the Kyakuden to house laborers. I was not aware of any split between SG/SGI and NS in 1943–45, although I know there were differences of opinion about how to deal with the military.


 * And Messrs. Makiguchi and Toda may have been opposed to State Shinto, but they were not (as SG(I) claims) unconditionally against the war, as existing documents they left behind prove. I know you'll be (quite rightly) asking for citations on this, but I'd have to go hunting for them, and that (frankly) is beyond the scope of what I'm willing to do here: My intention was not to get bogged down in a circular parlor debate. Also, Messers. Makiguchi and Toda, though they had disagreements with the priesthood, were never antagonistic towards the priests, and they always respected the priesthood's authority on matters of faith and doctrine (and the priests, as far as I know them, never seek to impose any authority beyond that anyhow); further, Messers. Makiguchi and Toda never deviated from Nichiren Shoshu teachings and practice.


 * Excuse me if I've neglected to answer some of your questions, but I want to get off to bed. Anyhow, these details aside, I suggest we get back on track and figure out how to make this article work. Whattaya think? Jersey_Jim 15:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (Ruby, one request: when you respond, could you please put your new comments after all those you're responding to, instead of inserting them between paragraphs of others' comments? I gets a bit confusing. See Talk pages, or more specifically Talk pages, if you're not sure what I mean. Thanks, Jersey_Jim 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Sorry - didn't know. Will do.


 * Quickly (as I've said good night twice already, if you followed my posts for the evening). First, it IS true that the priesthood accepted/compromised with the institution of Shinto and with the government. Not speaking of 62nd HP, but will ref. later. Second, I don't know whether or not they supported the war itself, but it is clearly established that Makiguchi and Toda were against militarism, and a militaristic education system -- this does not mean that they might not ever support a war. However, after the war, Toda was absoluteley opposed to war, and that is well documented. Third, I know they worked with/respected the priesehood (that point is also made/discussed earlier/elsewhere in reference to your view that that SG/SGI was making itself out to be a "victim of authority"). As did Ikeda. But just as Makiguchi and Toda also spoke up and questioned the priesthood at times, so did Ikeda. In this case, Ikeda questioned some of the rules that the priesthood was trying to instill. Frankly, if they had tried it when Toda was around, I doubt they would have gotten far. Toda was respectful, but he was also powerful and populr, and he would have been a much more difficult opponent than Ikeda. It looks from my perspective, like the priesthood didn't expect Ikeda to be much of a challenge, and when he was, they didn't care for it - or him. Hence the drama.


 * As for working on the article, yes, I think that is absolutely the priority and goal -- but I don't see how we can really avoid going through some of this stuff, mucky as it is. But I think its good to have this in an open forum like this, as ugly as it is, but foregt about all those who don't know what the hell we're talking about -- there are a lot of people out there on both sides of this who probably can benefit from this dialog, and probably can/should be contributing to it. At any rate, I think we are almost there, and I don't mind slogging through a little bit longer if you don't.


 * As for my part tonight, sorry, lets both deal with cites later. Sorry for my typos, too. Will fix later. I gotta get to sleep!!! - R signing off--70.111.27.59 08:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Different interpretations of WND

 * R:I guess one would have to accept that it was a part of something to accept that it had deviated from it. What I really would like to know is if the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin and the Lotus Sutra are different for Nichiren Shoshu? Because if they are the same, I understand why SGI went the way it did - there is no place for the kind of heirarchical temple priesthood type institution in the kind of world that SHakyamuni and Nichiren were describing. I frankly find it difficult to understand how anyone could both believe the WND and also believe in a priesthood. It seems like cognitive dissonance to me...

Gotta run, so have fun Jim_Lockhart 07:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (J1 entries)

Closing exchanges
G: Jim, I understand that I am just typing from my thoughts on the subject. But I was in the organization for 6 years. I am trying to validate that SGI isn't a nice organization from my personal viewpoint. I am also trying to gather fellow former members viewpoints on the organization as a whole. The words "indoctrinate" and "religiously intolerant" are loaded words but then again, they can be proven by the organization's activities.Gammadion 00:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then prove them. - R


 * Gammadion, I know where you're coming from. Unfortunately, the kind of proof Ruby wants will take a lot of digging to come by. Obviously personal experience isn't enough, as it shouldn't be in this setting. Best, Jim_Lockhart 16:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

R: I hear both of you, really, I do, and I understand that you have had bad experiences, and I don't mean to trivialize them, or anything. I just really do think that it would be better for all concerned in the long run if you could approach it from a different standpoint. I mean, maybe it was something different once, or maybe it is/was SG...but everything I've seen read experienced and researched (and trust me, it took me a good 6 or 7 years of questioning everything before I would even try it!!) everything has shown me that SGI is a real deal and a good thing. It will take a lot to change my mind. And I invite you to - I have no interest in blind faith, afterall. Quite the contrary. I mean, why not write a book or something? Do the work and get it out there?...?

Anyway. I really do wish you well, and I really am sorry if you and your family have sufferred. I hope you can and/or have found peace and comfort. Good night. And Peace. - Ruby --70.21.220.149 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting ready to rework the midsection
I have done some editing of History, Practice, and Excommunication sections, but the Doctrine and Criticism sections still need work (too tired to do it today, and other matters press). After that's all done, I will make another pass to remove redundacies, including redundant links (some concepts are linked more than once—bad style). If you have information to add or other suggestions, please make them so I can incorporate them in a consistent manner (or do it yourself). I suggest not deleting material that you merely do not like or agree with. Thanks to all involved, Jim_Lockhart 15:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the edits. I think its much clearer, much more fair and unbiased. I think it makes clear the distinction between SG and SGI, and puts perspective on the organizations' development that add real information. I noticed a few points probably those you didn't get to) that still seemed they could use some "neutralizing", so I gave it a shot. Hope you like it and don't mind. I don't think I deleted anything, just reorganized, tried to rephrase a bit, and add some points for perspective and clarification... Thanks. - Ruby--151.198.23.150 06:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The criticsm section could use some reworking too, it looks too much more like a apologetist section now. We could summarise the part on the cult of personality explaination. The unverifiable quote on SGI not being a buddhist organization is suspect too and should be removed. I hope someone can give me further input on my suggestion.Gammadion 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same, but it is a delicate area. And as Ruby will promptly (and rightly) point out, sources are needed. Also, you mention "religious equality laws," so I assume you're thinking of the situation in a certain country or countries; people (readers) outside those countries may not understand what is meant, so some explanation may be necessary. G'day, Jim_Lockhart 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruby's edits of 2005.11.29
Hi Ruby. I would say your edits today are a fair attempt to brings things more in line with a neutral point of view, but I also think we have a bit to go.

For the time being, I copy-edited this a bit to cut out some redundancy and make it a bit more concise (e.g., if you [generic you] write continues to serve as..., adding to this day is redundant because the predicate already implies that).

A historical inaccuracy is the statement about State Shinto. I believe (but have to check) the government started making Shinto the state religion back in the 1870s and it was more rigorous enforcement of this (by requiring people to install kami-fuda in their homes and workplaces) that initially brought Makiguchi and Toda into conflict with the secret police. (Things they said at discussion meetings where also a cause.)

Also, the references to Nichiren Buddhism, whether intended to be such or otherwise, look like an obfuscation: Makiguchi and Toda were interested in Nichiren Shoshu, an no other form of Nichiren Buddhism; why not just be straightforward and say so? I think that would be better than presentation that leaves itself open to accusation, given that the relationship is a matter of historical record.

Finally, the section on Daisaku Ikeda is too long for this article: it goes too far in shifting focus from SG/SGI (the subject of this article) to him. If I had my druthers, I'd shorten it to just a few lines and leave the rest to the Daisaku Ikeda article (that's what hyperlinks are for... ).

One last thing: I changed practitioners' dissatisfaction with having lost President Ikeda for two reasons:
 * 1) "practitioners" alone implies all practitioners of NS Buddhism, which is inaccurate; it was SG members who were dissatisfied.
 * 2) "loss of Pres. Ikeda" implies that Ikeda died or something. I know what you mean: members were unhappy that Ikeda was no longer their president, so I tried to rephrase it that way.

I find that some of the other events are also a bit mischaracterized, but I think they can stand as-is for the time being and be balanced out somewhere else.

Best regards Jersey_Jim 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim. I checked out some of your comments in the main article, provided citations where I could, and worked on the State Shinto question (more below). I and understand and accept much of the criticism about the length of the entries and going off on Ikeda, but would like to point out these were attempts to neutralize by introducing additional info, and using language that would soften (rather than cutting out) what was leaning a bit to far to the other side. As long neutrality is maintained, I don't have a problem with making edits to it.


 * The use of "Nichiren Buddhism" was just an oversight, really. It is commonly referred to in that way, elsewhere. But I can appreciate the point - technically, it was Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism that they practiced. However, since we're talking about it, I do think it can be argued that their (Makiguchi up until today's SGI) practice existed seperate from Nichiren Shoshu - I mean, their ideas were there, and the religion just provided a framework for it intiailly. Then, esp. after WWII, the relationship was a mutually advantageous one -- Makiguchi, esp. Toda, accepted (welcomed?) the priesthood's overseeing ceremonial rights, like funerals, and such, and SG brought a whole bunch or paying practioners to NS. NS gave authenticity to SG (this point I can document). I think that it is worth pointing out, but if it can't be stated explicitly, it seems fair to avoid the detailed argument by just sticking with the generic term. [Besides, one of the main reasons, as far as I know, that Makiguchi and Toda even belonged to NS formally was because it was imposed upon them by state law (in that same time period, I believe) that they all citizens must belong to a temple. As I understood it, practioners of Nichiren Buddhism prior to that didn't necessarily have to belong to any one sect; in fact, many practiced individually, and seperate from any priesthood at all, as was fitting to Nichiren's views, really (unless you are in NS and believe in the priesthood framework) -- I read this somewhere, but I'll find the source on that, though, before introducing it any further.]


 * As for use of "practioners" I get your point -- but I don't fully agree with it - I don't believe it implies "all of" any group - merely "those of the practitioners who..." Perhaps "many practitoners" would be better? To use anything else seems to me to lean back towards a sort of derogation of those folks. At any rate, I think that whole section still needs work, from both sides, frankly -- it's still just too touchy. I am looking into some sources to use for support and language. Will try to get something in later this week.


 * In my understanding and reading of the Shinto question, it is one of those cultural things -- Shinto is the national (read, "native") religion and has been forever, because it is native to the country. In the late 1800s the Emperors role changed -- but in fact many other relgions had existed in Japan alongside Shinto for centuries. In fact, the 1889 Constitution had a provision for religious freedom in it - something that had not existed before, and was actually a reflection of a desire to become more western and more open. (see State of Civil Society in Japan, ed. Frank Schwartz)


 * I liken the situation to here in the states - Christianity is, basically our national relgions -- but we don't all practice it, nor is it imposed upon us that we join a church, all have crucifixes in our homes, etc. As I understand it, it was in the 1920s and 1930s that the government really started stepping into people's lives,regulating religion, by trying to restructure them, and to demand that all citizens practice Shinto, etc. That is a dramatic change, and what is really meant (in my view) when we talk about "State Religions". I edited, but given other commentaries here, it will probably be considered too lengthy. Edit if you want, but I hope the intent will remain - that is to show the shift from a national to a state religion, and how and why that had the impact it did on the developement of SG...With that, I bid you adieu. Trying t change my ways, so logging off (relatively) early tonight! -- Ruby --70.111.27.59 07:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ruby. Sorry for not getting back to you—I ran into another busy patch as well as got side-tracked by a couple of other articles. I'll get back to you on the details above as soon as I can, perhaps over the weekend. On the Shinto question: please have a look at the Wiki article on Shinto, specifically the section on Shinto and the description further down the page on the different types of Shinto. This article is, to my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the subject, historically accurate. More details later. G'day :), Jersey_Jim 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. Life's gotten a bit hectic for me as well, lately. No time for much tonight either, but did make a few slight changes, spelling here and there (my typos are out of control - apologies to all!!) and deleted the word "unfortunately" as was suggested by reader above...that's about it. I'll keep checking back, though... Peace! - Ruby--70.111.27.59 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest new introductory lead
I think this article needs a new introductory lead, and I've tried one (see below) to see if it would meet with participants' expectations. Be warned: there will be something for everyone to like and for everyone to hate , so please be fair.

Once this is out of the way, then maybe we can tackle the body, which I think needs an organization plan or outline of some sort. I also wonder if Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International do not warrant separate articles with cross references where the two organizations overlap. Other SGI subsidiary organizations—such as SGI-USA, SGI-UK—when big enough, might also warrant discrete articles.

This suggestion is a bit long as a lead-in, so let's see what we can do to pare it down without sacrificing any informational content. (One way to do this is to say something only once, which I have no necessarily done here.)

Here goes...


 * Soka Gakkai International (創価学会インターナショナル) is the international umbrella organization for local Soka Gakkai organizations in over 190 countries. Founded at a function on Guam on January 26, 1975, as the International Buddhist League and later renamed Soka Gakkai International (SGI), it has over 12 million members, who practice a form of Nichiren Buddhism. As its name suggests, the SGI was born as a sub organization of the Japan-based Soka Gakkai from which it later took over its current function as the international umbrella. that developed as a response to the spread of the religion to other countries.


 * Soka Gakkai was originally formed as Sōka Kyōiku Gakkai (lit. "Value-Creation Education Society") in 1930, an organization whose goal was the reform of the then highly militaristic education system to one more humanistic in its aims. Its founders became convinced that the practice of Nichiren Buddhism could affect the change they sought to achieve. Following World War II, during its reconstruction, Sōka Kyōiku Gakkai became Soka Gakkai, an organization whose function was to provide support to followers of Nichiren Buddhism, particularly Nichiren Shoshu, with which it was affiliated. Soka Gakkai grew rapidly during the post-war period due in large part to the efforts of its president, Josei Toda, and as a lay organization of the Nichiren Shoshu school of Japanese Buddhism. It gave birth to supported the development of a number of subsidiary organizations in Japan, including a publishing arm, with a newspaper (Seikyo Shimbun) claiming 5 million daily subscribers, a political party, and a school system. It is strongly pacifist and has a decidedly cultural facet, yet, at least during its affiliation with the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood, has been known in the past for "strident conversion activities," (cite please) and was considered by some to be a tightly regimented organization.(cite please)


 * As Japan's largest single religious group organization, Soka Gakkai has become a is now an major important influence in the country's society and politics, as well as a focus of controversy: Though formally separate from the New Komeito Party, Soka Gakkai is perceived by many of the public as being the de facto controlling entity. Soka Gakkai promotes numerous good causes, yet the organization and its motivations are widely frequently mistrusted. As an organization, it donates generously to victims of natural disasters, and its members support each other in the most mundane and sublime of ways,( cite "Buddhists in America", among others.  Its membership donations go to wards building and supporting lavish (or cite this - ours, for example, is far from "lavish"!) activity centers to support the membership in their practice, provide meeting spaces, and act as organizational and operational centers. It is accused by some of the media, particularly in Japan, (cite sources) of being a vast money-making machine (cite or rephrase). Outside Japan, Soka Gakkai International promotes cultural exchange and peace initiatives, but has also been accused of being a cult, for example by the French government (cite) (NOTE: the French Government has a very broad definition of a cult -- Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and the Universal Church of God also fit on their list, and though I personally might agree, at least in the case of Jehovah's Witness, I am not sure of the value in using them as a source for this complaint, unless you also explain France's system for defining cults and/or the fact that they include other religious organizations which here in the US are not necessarily considered to be "cults.") (see http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html)

Detailed explanations of particular aspects and occurrences (I may have been a bit too specific here, too) should going into the body of the article, not the lead. I look forward to your input :). Best regards, Jersey_Jim 02:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim - I made some edits in the above introduction. Hope they help. I noticed there is still some tendency to mix SG and SGI together, so that might want to be clarified. So, I agree, I think individual articles might be necessary... I italicized my edits, and crossed out what I though was biased, repetitive, or whatever. I also thought there was a need to place some of the contents in context, and/or to provide citations to support certain points. I put in the one that I knew of...you may know of others...? Look forward to hearing your responses. Night! - Ruby --70.111.27.59 05:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)