Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 4

April 2006–
There are no concrete evidence showing that Soka Gakkai has brainwash, others on the net say soka Gakkai is controlling people and that Ikeda Sensei wants to take over the country etc. Ikeda Sensei is a respectable man who has work hard for peace. He wrote yearly peace proposals to the United Nations. He has engaged in dialogues with great people such as Arnold Toynbee, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Linus Pauling, Fidel Castro and so on. If you are interested, you can take a look at a book that contains the dialogue between Daisaku Ikeda and Arnold Toynbee. "The Toynbee-Ikeda Dialogue: Man Himself Must Choose (Oxford University Press 1976)." This is just one of the many books on the dialogues by Daisaku Ikeda. If he is someone who brainwashes people, he would not have engaged in dialogues with so many great people. Furthermore, Daisaku Ikeda has receive over 2000 honorary doctorates, citizenships etc. So if this is the case, do you mean that these hundreds of universities, peace activists, Nobel prize winners are wrong? If you say that i am lying, please show me how you can buy so honorary doctorates from so many universities. Sincerely, CassandraUser:Cassandra, 3:49PM 18 June 2006


 * With enough money, you can buy anything! And there is definately a lot of money in SGI. However, just because there is money doesn't mean it's been misused. If it had been, however, I am sure that that particular criticism would have been launched already!


 * The truth is that Cassandra is right - Ikeda is a visionary and an activist of sort; a hardworking, peaceful man, who has devoted his life to helping people empower themselves through Buddhism. The fact that he is so successful at this, that he has had the abililty to reach the ear of so many important and prominent leaders of our age, as well as those of so many millions of regular men and women, and yet, somehow, he has also remained somewhat elusive and decidedly NON-celebratoryy -- untainted by the Entertainment Tonight paparazzi and undefiled by the 20/20 In Depth Interview. NO. He just quietly goes about the business of not only spreading a message of peace and hope, but of inpsiirng millions to believe in peace and hope for their ownlives, and in the possibility of a peaceful,hopeful world for everyone.


 * And this makes people suspicious and uncomfortable. "He must have some special brainwashing magic to get people to become hopeful again, when everyone knows the world is rotten" they muse..." That does not compute," they think, ears growing red.... Because, frankly, many people have already given up hope. And in its place has grown a slightly embarassing enjoyment of, and comfort with, the depravity of human society. [B]ecause it makes them feel better about themselves. Because it is easier. Because when confronted with someone truthful, honest, simplistic - yet powerful - it scares them, angers them, and most of all, it reminds them of their own sickness; of their own loss of hope, their own inability to create peace and happiness, and the fact that they have given up on it - given up on themselves.


 * Ikeda challenges us to revisit that part of ourselves that once believed. And invites us to believe again. Only this time, come at it spiritually armed. And that can be terrifying, to some. --71.250.122.11 03:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an SGI UK member & have never given them any money ever, nor have I been asked for any. Maybe I should give them some if I'm being a freeloader!  Come to think of it, I always used to pay into the collection at church each sunday... I'm interested to know what people think the 'brainwashing' is supposed to achieve?  Maybe it's different in the US but I can't see how my membership of the organisation is actually benefitting anyone more senior in the organisation more than any other religious group, I've not had to give anything up or hand anything over or anything.  My experience with buddhism has been nothing but positive and I'm sorry and surprised that people are so upset about it all.  My aunt has given nearly all her money to a christian telly evangelist in the USA who has also convinced her that her son is going to be tortured in hell for all eternity because he happens to be gay - this is the kind of cult/brainwashing behaviour to look out for, surely!  If I've been brainwashed it's to go to meetings occasionally if I fancy it and talk to other nice people, and chant in my home, no handing over of life savings or denying my only child!  Sorry I'm not a wikipedia member/proper contributor I'm not trying to do a "name & address withheld" I'm just a bit cr@p at this kind of thing!  Donna Hardcastle (Added by User:62.25.109.195 at 23:47, 29 August 2006 UTC)

Request for more info on brainwashing techniques
i would like more information included in the article about the brainwashing techniques that were and still are used by the gakka. i would like to know what they are myself. during the time when i was a member of the sgi, it gradually dawned on my that i was being subjected to some kind of thought control. i fought against this control, successfully i thought. though in the back of my brain there still may be a little "gakker" trying to tell me what to do from time to time. i really would be interested in finding out just what techniques were used on me and on other people. if anyone has any information relating to "soka gakkai mind control techniques" i would appreciate it if that person or persons were to add this data to the "gakkai" article or to the discussion page. thank you very much. jonathan becer, former member of the soka gakkai User:Jonbecker03, inserted 11:42, 7 April 2006.


 * This is a very touchy subject, and as such it would have to be extensively researched—including the definitions of brainwashing. Rather than brainwashing (or mind control), peer pressure seems to me to be the most common method employed for ensuring conformity, and persons who refuse to conform are often dealt with through partonization and isolation rather than ouster. Non-conformists, too, have their uses. The only non-conformity that is not tolerated is anything that can be seen as disloyalty to the top leadership. This is widely documented in Japan, though probably less so outside SG(I)'s home country. Jim_Lockhart 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes the article accused of being non-neutral POV.  The vast majority of people who get involved with SGI would say that there IS no brainwashing that goes on.  I know that in my personal experience, there hasn't been any- to the contrary, SGI's members and leaders have continually encouraged me (and others) to ask questions, be critical, and if we disagree with someone or something, feel free to share that.


 * For example, last month I went to a youth division chapter study meeting. One of the things we discussed was cultural differences between the members, as our group was about 75% Japanese and the rest Americans (I'm in Seattle).  We wound up agreeing to disagree on more than a few things, even not able to come to 100% agreement on the nature of what the mentor/disciple relationship meant to us and to SGI.


 * Considering how much emphasis is placed on this, it's pretty remarkable that we were able to disagree and still look upon everyone there as being a valued member of the organization. I was in the minority view, yet I'm hosting the May study meeting!  Obviously, in this chapter and area at least, there are no "Soka Gakkai mind control techniques"- if there were, they certainly would either be cranking them out on me, or booting me from the group!  :)


 * To say that there's "peer pressure"... well, if you have a group of people who think one way, and someone comes into the group who thinks another way, and then those in the group try to change that person's mind... is that "using peer pressure" or is it a natural occurrance when you have a non-conformist in the midst? Where's the dividing line between nefarious, evil-intent "brainwashing" and simply coming together with a group of people who think the same way you do?


 * By some definitions, *any* teaching method that purports to teach a certain set of values or opinions on a subject could be called "brainwashing". Is it brainwashing to tell children that they need to learn and use the letters of the alphabet to create, spell, and use words in a given way?  Or is it simply teaching the language?  How about if we tell children and teenagers that they shouldn't drink alcohol until they're 21?  Is that brainwashing?  What if we run messages telling people to not drink and drive?  Is that brainwashing?  Where is the line drawn?  How about if we tell people that we think our religion is correct?  Is it brainwashing when the Pope holds Mass for tens of thousands in St Peter's Square?  No?  Then why is is "brainwashing" if the SGI touts its own beliefs to members and prospective members?


 * The difference, I think, must be drawn somewhere in the vicinity of the intent of the people doing the teaching (or, if you prefer, the brainwashing). If they are motivated by greed and intentionally do things to try and *take control* of someone's volition, mind, and will, then they're brainwashing.  If they're motivated by positive things, like genuinely having compassion and wanting people to come to believe as they do because they think it's best, and they are trying to give people a free choice in the matter, then it's merely teaching- sometimes vigorously, sure, but still teaching- their beliefs.


 * I hear these accusations against SGI and I feel embarrassed and bad. It makes me think that there are members of my organization, SGI, that are not acting in a fair, just manner.  Of course, sometimes you're going to have someone who is going to recieve the message the wrong way no matter what... but I can't abide by the idea of SGI being a brainwashing cult.  Compared with my girlfriend's mainline evangelical Christian church, SGI is a pussycat; it asks for money the grand total of just once a year, in the May timeframe; it doesn't tell people they can't be gay, or must live in a certain way; SGI just shares Nichiren's teachings.


 * Hence (I'm getting impassioned here) the solution is that we must not put these kinds of accusations into the Wiki article on SGI. If someone wants to have a separate article detailing the accusations, but giving some references and doing actual scholarly work on it, go nuts.  Until then, that kind of stuff needs to stay out of the SGI article, IMO.  --Enumclaw 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

enumclaw, you are obviously not an objective observer. you are a current soka gakkai member yourself. you almost certainly have been subjected to the brainwashing. you are probably a receptive subject when it comes to brainwashing and at this point you are so infuenced by the organization that you are unwilling or unable to even realize that the brainwashing has taken place. i asked for information about "soka gakkai brainwashing techniques" because these techniques are so subtle. i know that i was subjected to these techniques, but i am not certain what these entail. the sgi is subtle. it isn't like the nazis or stalin. the techniques it uses are twenty first century mind control measures. the organization can control (at least part of) your mind without your even being aware of it. i now realize that, when i was a member of the group, i did things that just weren't "me." i did things that i never would have imagined doing either BEFORE or AFTER i was a member. like shakabuku for instance. when i was introduced to the concept, i ridiculed it. i called it "shakabooboo." a "boo boo." an error. a mistake. i felt that trying to convince people to join the soka gakkai was an invasion of their privacy, an assault on the intellectual autonomy of the individual. yet soon after i received my gohonzon, I started to shakabuku people myself. the organization was somehow able to "get under my skin" (or, more correctly, "into my head") in order to change my beliefs. now that i have been away from the group for a few years, i realize that my efforts at shakabuku were foolish and that i should never have engaged in this degrading practice. (the "practice" of buddhism as interpreted by the sgi, as well as the specific "practice" of shakabuku) as i said before, i am still trying to figure out just what kind of techniques were used on me. but i have an inkling. it appears that the organization breaks down a person's sense of individuality by violating his or her intellectual autonomy. i will give you two examples of how this was done to me. first of all, i was told that i should go outside and break a live branch off of a bush and place it on my altar. i objected. i stated that i felt that doing so would be like severing a limb from a human. (i am not opposed to the use of plants by human beings, but i feel that there should be some kind of pragmatic reason if one is to destroy or disfigure a tree or bush. and i felt that the desire to perform a religious ceremony in a scrupulously "correct" way just wasn't a good enough reason.) nonetheless, my sgi mentor convinced me to change my mind and soon i was out breaking branches with the best of them. now i no longer keep an altar and the bushes in my neighborhood remain unmolested. before i close, i will detail one more example of manipulation. my mentor asked me when i was going to get a gohonson. (before he posed the question, i had intended to practice WITHOUT the use of one. call me a purist, but object fetishism doesn't really work for me.) in any case, i said that eventually i would get a butsudan or make one myself and then i would get a gohonson WHEN AND IF I FELT READY TO GET ONE. but my ymd leader told me that "sooner was better than later" and that i should get my gohonson before march 16 of that year. regretably, i took his advice. the gohonzon, in my mind, always functioned as a symbol of the "armtwisting" that i had to endure while a member of the organization. thankfully, i have now arranged to give this unwanted ritual object back to the sgi. jonathan becker former member of the soka gakkai ````


 * I agree with Enumclaw that the material does not belong—that is, if it can not be documented. What authoritative source has credibly said that SGI uses brainwashing techniques? That said, SGI does use subtle mind control; it differentiates itself from (other) cults in that it does not push the envelope, it does not seek to take complete control over people, and it makes extra effort not to alienate members. For instance, a great degree of variation in acceptance of SGI concepts is tolerated, and SGI is very tolerant of all kinds of lifestyles, including "alternative" ones, as long as a member is not disruptive. And even disruptive people are tolerated for years. SGI also does not encourage members to disengage from society (though it does demonize perceived enemies and encourage members not to deal with them) or from their families. As I wrote above, The only non-conformity that is not tolerated is anything that can be seen as disloyalty to the top leadership. This is obvious, in Japan at least, from just a glance inside the Seikyo Shimbun, Soka Gakkai's daily newspaper, in which former leaders considered traitors are routinely demonized, especially in a section called "Suntetsu" and a weekly roundtable discussion-like serial called "Kofu no rekishi: shukan zadankai" ("History of kosenrufu: weekly discussion"). If there are many Japanese in your local group, ask them about these (especially the latter) and get them to translate some of them for you. I'll bet they'll be embarrassed at the content and try to justify the language with something like "these people stabbed President Ikeda in the back and caused him much pain." Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

sgi-usa isn't sexist. it isn't racist. it isn't homophobic. good for them. but...........big deal. all that means is that the group is a BIT less bigoted than most of the rest of the american middle class. (and the soka gakkai continually pats itself on the back with respect to its "toleration.") i wouldn't join a group that was overtly bigoted. but even though the group is not "bigoted" in the traditional sense of the term, it could be described as "doctrinaire" and even at times as intolerant. to the best of my knowledge, i was never "disloyal" to the top leadership of the soka gakkai. yet my "nonconformity" was NOT always tolerated. i was not allowed to join the group UNTIL i had received a gohonzon. the idea of a member practicing WITHOUT the aid of this ritual object apparently did not go down well with the local authorities. further, i was not encouraged to configure my altar in the manner that i desired. my ymd leader frowned upon my initial decision to omit the "branch of a bush" business. so much for the toleration of "a great degree of variation in the acceptance of sgi concepts." you acknowledge the demonization business, mr lockhardt, but you don't seem to appreciate the EXTENT of this practice. demonization of nikken and the temple is UBIQIITOUS in the sgi. finally it got to be too much for me, and i left the organization. once, during a meeting, my district chief (an intelligent man who should know better) referred to nikken as the "devil king of the sixth heaven." i was embarrased for him. i walked out of the meeting, and i never looked back. sincerely, jonathan becker (````)


 * Hmmmm. People sharing their values with others (as is done in shakubuku), an organization instilling the values it stands for in those who have chosen to join it, and asking that people fulfill certain prerequisites before they can formally join an organization—these hardly constitute any but the broadest definitions of brainwashing or mind control; and viewing the Gohonzon as a "ritual aid" is indicative of a very cursory understanding of what faith is all about. People who are wary of the "mind-altering effects" of a religious practice or austerity are ill-advised to take up any form of Buddhism, since from the onset it is no secret that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve a different mental and physical state: What do you think enlightenment is all about? I'm certainly no fan of Soka Gakkai, and don't particularly want to be seen as defending it (Enumclaw will vouch for that, I'm sure), but these things are all too common to religions, philosophies, and ideologies to be singling SGI out for complaining about. This is not to say that no mind-control techniques are used inside Soka Gakkai/SGI; as a matter of fact, I agree that such techniques are employed, and that they are applied very subtly. I would disagree, though, with any assertion that they were formalized and consciously and systematically applied; they have evolved over the years and in many ways are applied unconsciously, and for the most part the people using them are sincere. Back to the SGI article: If you want information added on the brainwashing/mind-control techniques and how they are applied, then it's up to you to add it. But if you do, you must do it in a credible manner using sourced information. Your experience may be the driver behind such additions, but it may not be the source of credibility for it. If you're going to write that SGI has been accused of using mind control, then say who has done the accusing and cite sources for the assertion; e.g., author XXX says in book YYY that... or Government AAAA accuses SGI of using mind control in BBBB White Paper on New Religious Groups. If you don't source it properly, then SGI apologists are perfectly within their rights when they remove it; on the other hand, if you cite solid, authoritative sources, they aren't. That's how Wikipedia works. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 12:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

mr lockhart, you have inspired me. i am thinking of writing a book called "victims of the soka gakkai." it will consist of "testimony" by people who have had negative experiences with the sgi. the book will once and for all expose the ikeda cult for the brainwashing organization that it is. it may take me decades to write this tome, but whenever it comes out it will be timely. forty years from now there will still be controversy about sgi brainwashing because the sgi will continue to brainwash people even then. (it is regretable to think that the sgi will still be in existence forty years from now, but this nefarious organization will probably outlive us all and will be in a position to try to brainwash our grandchildren's grandchildren.) i'm going to give up trying to add information to the wikipedia sgi article. no matter what i put in, some brainwashed gakker will always be around to take it out. but i will almost certainly have the last laugh, or at least i will be in a position to assuage some of the pain that i feel as a result of the sgi. the soka gakkai DID attempt to break down my individuality. the sgi DID violate my intellectual autonomy. i will probably suffer from this damage for the rest of my life. i will never regain the confidence that i once had in myself. i am a mere shell, the mere "husk" of the confident person i once was before i joined the organization. it has been years since i last attended an sgi meeting, but experiences that i had with the group STILL come up in the sessions that i have with my therapist(who, by the way, is QUITE convinced that i was subject to brainwashing techniques of various kinds). these issues come up again and again and again in my psychotherapy sessions. and i don't think that i am alone. what happened to me also happened to hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people. (though most of these people are not AWARE of what has happened to them. most current members of the sgi have been brainwashed so thoroughly that they do not realize that they have been the victims of thought control.)  wikipedia may have deprived me of one outlet which i can use to vent my animosity toward the sgi. but i will find another outlet. or, more accurately, i will find SEVERAL other outlets. jonathan becker

OH MY GOD! Are we back at this again??? Look. It is simple. There is NO brainwashing at SGI.

But, if a person has difficulty asserting himself, or is prone to giving up his/her sense of Self, or maybe is a bit of a follower, but doesn't want to admit it, then it's possible that he or she may have given too much of him or her Self away, or, at least more than he/she is comfortable with. But to claim to be a "victim?" That's unfair. These are a reflection of YOUR problems - not SGIs. No doubt you have similar problems in other areas of your life, in other relationships, etc. No doubt your problems have far deeper roots than your time in SGI.

As for your therapist, well, his view is based on what you tell him. It is unlikely that he would discount your experience -- it is not his role to do so. Besides, it might be even more damaging if he did -- I mean, would you continue to see him if he told you that you hadn't been brainwashed - that you simply need to strengthen your EGO??? Of course not! And, secondly, if the roots are deeper than that, and he's truly a concerned professiona, then he is committed to helping you get to them - for as long as it takes to get to them. So you are lucky to have him.

I am sorry that you are struggling with all of this - obviously, you are sufferring. But many others are helped by this practice. It is not fair to impose your delusion on other people, and to denigrate an organization -- and the people who practice with them -- because you have problems with your own self esteem and identity. I am sure you will take exception to what I have said. So be it. Only you can know the truth of it. I can only wish you well. - Ruby --68.45.57.193 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of negative material from intro unacceptable
Because that paragraph was part of the introduction, it is irrelevant whether it look redundant: An introduction is intended to provide an executive summary of everything in the article body—the text that follows the contents. Surely you don't intend to create the impression that the article focuses only on presentation that is favorable to SGI, do you? That would be unfair to readers. Please put the paragraph back. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 09:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction & the article
Hi new poster here, ive been following the article for a few weeks, I have reviewed the external links good and bad and have a few ideas. The controversy that surrounds this organization seems to be based between nichiren shoshu(in japan) and sgi(international) with alot of the groundwork coming from japan where the organizations originated from. After looking around and comparing to the other religions and sects, i propose we seperate the criticisms from each article and make a new article that, most likely, will be a cite war. The benefit is two-fold. First, the articles relating to each sect of buddhism talk about THAT buddhism, what they do, where they came from, etc etc, and not talk about the criticisms that anyone may have about them(similar to the anti-christianity criticism article and others). This is the most NPOV solution i can up with. Also, having a criticisms oriented paragraph in the intoduction seems extremely bias against an organization that promotes culture and peace(i have seen some demonstrations, nothing on a global scale or read about the political party, has anyone btw?) Secondly, in the split article section, the details can come out a little more clearly as they arent presented on the article talking about a buddhist sect, its an article about how the sect is impacting the world. It just seems a bit more accurate. Hopefully i will have a viable solution setup after i do some more reading about editing etc... Thoughts?


 * I'm am not opposed to the idea of separating the criticism from the article(s); as a matter of fact, I welcome it, though I do think mention of the existence of the criticism with hyperlinks to descriptions of it are warranted: Removal of all criticism is not NPOV, it is the most furtive kind of POV there is because it creates the impression that there is no criticism. Your impression that criticism of SGI is based on its conflict with Nichiren Shoshu, however, is mistaken, though most likely what SGI members would like you to think. SGI, or more precisely its parent Soka Gakkai, has been controversial in Japan since at least the mid-1950s, but especially since the early 1960s when it began to gain political influence and the existing political players, especially the unions and the parties on the left, began to see it as a threat. It has also always been controversial for its virulent evangelism, which it now blames on its contemporary association with Nichiren Shoshu. You can find information about this by researching older publications (pre-1980s) on the subject, if you can find them. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

May 2006
I found that the article was way too postive for the SGI, yes there are good points, but let's try to see both sides. I've added in a chapter at the end of the critism, on the role of fundraising (which seems important to me and an anomoly that it was not included) and a sourced quote from Time magazine.

In order to readress the balance, we all believe in fairness and free speach here no?, I think there should be more on the court cases in France and Belgium that are only mentioned in passing in the introduction. Can anyone provide some balanced information on these? Will --196.207.196.215 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I definately agree in free speach and fairness. But one thing i wanted to point out about this article pertaining to fairness. This is a world religion, hence the international organization. When you look at other articles on world religion, they all have a very npov(or maybe biased in their favor) and they have a seperate article pertaining to the criticisms. Forgive me for saying, but even the mormons and jehovahs witnesses pages are less biased.

Looking at your additions about the monetary donations part, what religious group does not accept monetary donations to further there cause, and what is 'soft' pressure (surely you mean 'encouragement'). If a church is desperate for funds, the pastor will build his sermon around how its just as easy for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to enter heaven. Where is the critical article about churches harrassing members for funds? SGI asks members to voluntarily donate money one time in a year and they take any amount small or large. Most christian churches except offerings every week. If we wanted to present a bias argument against churches, we could phrase it like this. "Christian churches, in an effort to extort maximum funds from their members, will hold 'offerings' after conducting songs of merriment and praise to god to lull their members to believe God is with them" Im sorry for having to make this correlation between the two religions, I respect both and dont wish to slander either, thats the point of this post. Im disappointed you think this article is biased in favor of SGI and would like to see hear your examples of such. You dont balance bias, you eliminate the bias. --JHedges

Hear!Hear! - Ruby--68.45.57.193 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The comments made about fundraising could apply to any religion. $2 billion is a drop in the pond compared to what some other organizations, even some Buddhist ones, rake in each year. Yes, the SGI believes that if you give, you will receive back, but this idea of "the more you give" is blatantly false. You can find numerous stories in the official SGI publications (The World Tribune and Living Buddhism) that support my statement here. Giving when you can is what matters, the amount or frequency does not. 70.185.9.67 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Staci

Ok let me know what you guys think of the new page, i made a few minor edits for clarity and am plannin on expanding the french and belgian accusations to become more precise. Also, i removed the monetary donations bit because it was fairly ambiguous, the statement could swing in favor or against sgi members. Are they devoted or brainwashed? Nothing to major I hope, will return again another day to see what can be done! Oh yes, if anyone is interested, heres an interesting article pertaining to the anti-cult groups in western europe, from iskcon http://www.iskcon.com/icj/5_2/5_2liberty.html --67.130.119.210 JHedges 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lockhart, the introduction was edited as a matter of journalism and nothing to do with hiding the criticism(which I can only assume you thought I was doing). You seem more intent on bringing to the forefront criticisms of SGI rather than presenting a neutral and clear article. To touch on the criticisms of the organizations and present a link to the page is plenty and clearly IMO such a topic would go under the history of SGI.

To include a second paragraph in the introduction, devoted to showcasing the criticims of SGI, implies the article will heavily detail it or at *least* have another mention somewhere else. From what I understood, you agreed to keep the pages seperate to maintain a NPOV, but also to provide a clear hyperlink to the page. I have done as you requested and in proper format, but you have changed it, could you please explain? --JHedges 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm under deadline right now and won't have time to review all your changes until the weekend. That said, I think your creation of the separate article on criticism is in principle a good thing; but that doesn't mean that references to criticism should be eliminated from the current article—that would be POV. What I have intended to say is that criticism need not be discussed in detail  in this article. The need only be mentioned as existing, with a link to the article that deals specifically with them. This is the pattern you will observe in other, especially long, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects.  I believe that mention of criticism of SGI belongs in the introduction—which is intended as an executive summary of the article to follow—and that the article body should also contain a heading and summary of the criticisms, with the redirect to the main Criticisms of SGI article. Without such a paragraph or section to provide balance, the article becomes nothing more than another marketing tribute to SGI—a situation that many other contributors have long complained about (see the above-linked archives for details). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're just wrong on this, Jim. As soon as you start talking about, say, the French and Belgian governments' criticisms of SGI, you're no longer talking about SGI; you're talking about someone *else's* views of the SGI.  Go to Wikipedia's pages for the Catholic Church- nothing in the introduction about the Inquisition, yet that was surely far worse than what the critics of SGI have to say.  Go to the page for Islam- again, nothing in the introduction about the nutjobs calling themselves "muslims" who're driving airplanes into buildings.  The article is about the SGI.  It is not about the criticism of the SGI.  If you want to write about the criticism of the SGI, then write a separate article about it, and put a link to that article into the main one.  Simply because the main article talks about the SGI without saying "some people say they're practicing mind control" or something like that doesn't make it a "marketing tribute".  There's other places in the article where it quits being about the SGI and starts being about what other people SAY about the SGI... like in the history, where (when talking about Ikeda stepping down in 1979) it says "according to Nichiren Shoshu followers..."  That would be like talking about the Pope and saying "according to Lutherans, the pope is full of poop".  Why should/would we quote Lutherans' perceptions of the Pope in an article about the Pope?  Ultimately, I strongly urge we consider following the layout of the pages of other religions, where criticisms of the group in question are sections of the main article, or entirely separate pages in and of themselves.  They don't belong in the introduction, and they should be properly recognized as being what someone else says *about* the group rather than being something describing the group itself.--Enumclaw 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, I'm going to have to chew on this for a while—as well as check out how the articles on other religious (and political groups, methinks) groups are formulated. I recall that they (e.g., the one on the Pope) do contain the mention of criticism that you say they don't have, but it's been a long time since I read them, and when I did that isn't the sort of thing I was reading for. In any case, in broad principle, I agree with your final paragraph, except for the part about the introduction.  That said, I have difficulty with the notion that the SGI article should not contain descriptions of what others think about SGI insofar as those opinions are relevant to getting a full picture of SGI. An article that contains only descriptions favorable to SGI, when there is so much unfavorable (at least, from SGI members' perspective) to report about it, does become a bit of an marketing tribute (for lack of a better qualification—I'm sure there's a more appropriate description, but I can't think of it right now).  Meanwhile, I note that someone is taking advantage of the removal of criticism to the discrete article to take the teeth out of that article as well. I wonder if people who do this realize that, by repeatedly emasculating criticism of SGI, that they are potential giving credence to those criticisms—especially the ones we've repeatedly seen on this page to the effect that SGI members will not tolerate critical views of their organization or (especially) its leadership, and that this is effectively one way in which SGI functions to silence its critics. Later, Jim_Lockhart 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure best how to describe my goal here. First, I want to say what religion welcomes criticism with open arms? Nobody wants people critically picking their every action apart, especially when you are a crusader of world peace. The criticism page isnt even degrading, its factual and presents good points, but alot of the points apply to every religious group. If your going to use that as a basis to put criticism in the introduction, what grounds does SGI have to defend itself. IMHO, you are over compensating just a bit.

My original edit only moved the criticism paragraph *two* paragraphs down, and edited out the french and belgian mention. But i only edited it out, because i included it a little more accurately under the new criticism page. Simply put, it is more fair to include it under the History of SGI, and not in the introduction. I say this because for one, the introduction sets up the rest of the article. You even said this about the introduction - "An introduction is intended to provide an executive summary of everything in the article body—the text that follows the contents." As is, your introduction is implying we are gonna hear alot of outside criticism and less who, what, where, when, why. Secondly, we have a whole *new* page for criticism where we can expound on critical matters of SGI without any journalism stipulations i.e move the criticism paragraph out of the introduction.

To get more exposure to the critical page, i think we could also include it under the "See Also" secion at the end, so it has a mention in the beginning and the end of it, so any critical reader couldnt miss it. As it is, a casual reader could potentially come off with biased view after only reading a bit of it. This is my worry, awaiting further input before taking action. --JHedges 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

SGI Critic: SGI members dont tolerate criticism! SGI Member: But we DO tolerate criticism SGI Critic: AHA!! SEE!?

Im sorry I got a little satirical there, but I have been mystified by this critical point for awhile now. The only other outcome to this situation is the member agreeing with the critic and then dismissing the critics claim. This would justify the critic making his claim, but debunk his initial argument. By applying this critical viewpoint SGI members are forced into a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation. I would venture out as far as to say this is a ludicrous point or maybe just a scare tactic. While we are on this subject, I would like to point out that I myself am not a member of SGI, but have plenty of colleagues who are members(some even local leaders). While it may appear I am a defender of SGI here in this discussion page, they would consider me a critic(but i respect their religion/actions and do not vocally degrade them often) Anyways, i've had my fun and I am very much looking forward to more input. --JHedges 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding
Not to put anyone who has contributed here down, but I think this discussion is hilarious. In a time when other religions/cults are being accused (and I say accused, which doesn't mean it's true) of things like:

a) convincing their male adherents that martrydom aimed at destroying 'the infidels' will bring them 72 virgins in the afterlife (without taking into the sexual preference of each troubled martyr)

b) making sure women and homosexual people (and in some cases, people of diverse racial and cultural heritage) have little opportunity to provide strong spiritual leadership

c) controlling Hollywood, the global media and the crap that comes out of its studios

d) ensuring that Arab unity will never be achieved in aid of acquiring Western oil cheaply

e) poisoning their adherents (oops, most of these don't last long)...

...and more, the best that most people can do on this talk page is accuse a grassroots faith-based organisation of an unelaborated, poorly substantiated idea of 'brainwashing'. With respect, I am an international Soka Gakkai member and I'm TOTALLY BIASED if anyone is asking. For those who suffer from Sofia Coppola-style cultural loss-in-translation, the SGI in Japan, while subject to the influence of cultural rigidity and monolithism on occasion, is one of the most un-Japanese organisations in principle. Japanese chauvinists take heed.

For those who accuse the organisation for engineering their miserable time as membersm well if you applied more diligence and depth (regardless of Buddhist school) to your Buddhist study, you may realise that all ultimately espouse that YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your life. And if that meant that you needed to convert to another religion, that is TOTALLY FINE to discover what turns you on. I don;t deny that there are some SGI members who have issues with people who are not Buddhists, but that's their issue. I've met many non-Buddhists who are clear about taking charge of their lives, that's even better. Re: the dialogue and engagement that Ikeda takes up with leaders of various faiths and backgrounds on a regular basis. Intercultural, inter-faith engagement is what is being demonstrated here by Ikeda's actions, and not exclusion, a movement that other faiths are also pushing for in the context of current global conflict. Nam-myo-hon-renge-kyo is ultimately a practice (like playing the violin, or yoga) and you are totally free to choose NOT to practise it, if you think it does not work for you. Those of us who are totally biased SGI members on this forum, it's because it has worked for us and continue to do so, though not always instantaneously. And while chanting brings lots of benefits, people forget that it's hard work to sustain any faith and apply its principles to our lives. I don't know about other faiths, but I know that Buddhism is simple stuff but hard work.

Cheers TK

brainwashing, my experience
Hello, I felt compelled to write a liitle on everything I've read in this latest archive. I am an SGI-USA member, and a volunteer district leader. I appreciate very much those here that strive for accuracy in source material and push for criticism of the Gakkai to be withheld to another page. Every single religion on this planet has deterrants. All criticism of the Gakkai that is based on speculation, or the experience of a very small percentage of former SGI members should be noted, but put in a discussion room. In the Gakkai, we do believe in dialogue, and we never consider an issue sincerely brought forward to ever be closed, or unworthy of our consideration.

I was born in to a Gakkai family, had my own experiences growing up, and chose to quit my Gakkai Buddhist practice in my mid-twenties. The reasons I quit were because I felt estranged from a few of my fellow leaders, and I couldn't get over the fact that a few of these leaders did things, and told me to do things that I didn't want to do. I spoke up once to one leader letting her know I objected to something she was doing. When she did something that I didn't agree with a second time, instead of dialoguing with her, or any leader I was having trouble with, I chose the seemingly easier route and just quit the Gakkai.

Things didn't get better in my life after I quit, 9/11 happened, Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War and the election of officials in the U.S. were conducted with what I believed to be with a great deal of ignorance on how to secure the dignity of human life. I was depressed in my personal life, and the rest of the world offered no consolation. It was at this time I remembered the positive aspects of the Gakkai and realized that its members were very, very concerned about uniting in a chaotic world with the vision of promoting what I desperately wanted to be true: that the sanctity of human life can be protected and promulgated. I realized that the membership is 12million strong and growing; these numbers reflect something real and tangible in the attainment of world peace, since the 12 million is a phenomenal statistic achieved in only the last 60 years.

The reasons I quit were not because of anything erroneous in the teachings, it is because I had problems with a few leaders out of several. Also, I never studied President Ikeda's guidance like the dictum "faith, practice and study" of the Gakkai says to do. I am now in the Gakkai again, have been practicing and studying somewhat correctly for a year now, and have taken the voluntary role of being a district leader. I realize that I never followed President Ikeda's guidance in his speeches that I needed to speak out against what was incorrect within the organization. I also realized that I was hurt by minor things that a few humans did (that had leadership positions) and that I failed to realize that it's okay to be a human. As a leader I have regrettably done a few things that I hate I did while having this leadership position, but I am human, and I can change for the better as my practice encourages. This is what is meant by the Gakkai goal of "human revolution".

People that quit often do because they have a problem with what a few leaders tell them to do. I ask you to please match what these leaders tell you to do with what President Ikeda encourages us to do in his numerous writings and speeches. If a leader is strong-arming us to do something that is trivial, or suits that person's individual ego, then it should be challenged. If we need encouragement on how to dialogue with our leaders, then we can go over that leader's head and find encouragement from a region or zone leader. Most importantly, we can get direct encouragement from President Ikeda--he did get word back to me after I wrote him a letter of how troubled I was years ago--from him, by writing a letter, or by chanting with determination to put into practice the sagacious things he encourages humanity to do.

Please get courage to dialogue with those that are offensive, as well as those that are our friends. It is the only way that World Peace can be realized. tjnebraskaTjnebraska 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * this is a biased comment, and does not have credibility (i.e. not signed with 4 tilda's)--sin-man 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai
I have looked briefly at this forum. I have also read terrible things said about Soka Gakkai, like people demanding money from members. I'd like to say what my experience of Soka Gakkai in Italy and the UK has been like so far.

I have never been asked for donations of money. This I valued enourmously as I never felt I was being taken advantage of. I would not have stayed if that had occured.

I have contributed to the cause by using my time, my labour, my creativity. I have made donations in money a couple of times, after a pay rise or something really good happening to me.

But never, ever a member has pushed or even mildly suggested I contribute with money in the 8 years I have been with Soka in both countries.

In the Soka Gakkai I have met friends and mentors, and also people I do not particularly like. I take everybody as they are, as long as they respect me.

I found respect in the Soka members and organisation, I found guidance and support when going through hard times, and I try to do the same for the others. I have many friends who are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and even Ba'hai. I get on with everybody and we have really stimulating discussions. I love my religion because is the one I chose when I was young (simply by reading books on various religions) and the one I chose officially 8 years ago, the religion I chose today. If the Soka Gakkai turned bad I would not compromise, probably continue to practise this buddhism but I would abandon Soka if it became manipulative or dishonest.

This religion belongs to me and I belong to Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism. At the moment Soka is a good place for me to be.

I started volunteering because Soka Italian members were suggesting this as a good way of contributing to society, but that's about all they suggested.

I take what I know to be right, and I know if something is wrong and refute it. My practice betters my life and I strive to be happy and help others do the same.

The Organisation has a lot of good members, who behave like good human beings to others. This is my experience.

Margherita


 * sign with 4 tilda's please,--sin-man 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SGI, Money, and brainwashing
I was an SGI member for ten years. My first husband was born into the SGI in Japan and then practiced in the USA for 15 years. We both left the organization when it fell apart from the Nichiren Shoshu organization in the early 90s. When two separate groups claiming to be the same faith and both screaming about unity are at each other's throats calling each other liars, somebody is being hypocritical.

I have been reading these threads and am amazed at the numbers of people claiming never to have been asked for money. What about World Tribune? Every single month, if you didn't get your World Tribune subscription, the senior leaders came a-knocking at the door. And hey, don't forget to subscribe for a family member who may or may not be a member, help enlighten them, too! What about Seikyo Times?

What about special gokaihi two or three times a year to build new culture centers, new kai kans, new temples, add on to Soka University? What about senior leaders asking you how much you would pledge to give, and what do you mean only $50, why, we're giving $5,000, can't you take out a loan/second mortgage/sell your car/take on a second or third job?

What about $21 to get your Gohonzon, and another $50 to return it when you get married and only need one in the house? Even though you're supposed to be able to have your Gohonzon for life? And then another $21 to get it back when you end up divorced?

What about fees for big meetings like Hawaii, San Diego, and etc, including over the top expenses for flights, hotels and meals, expenses far and above the standard going rates for travel in those times and places? Where did the money go?

As to brainwashing. What about lack of sleep allowed on large activities? What about having every single evening and weekend taken up with Gakkai activities, leaving no time at all for non-SGI related things like, oh, family and friends? What about standing out in February cold or August humidity on street corners with pamphlets approaching total strangers saying "Excuse me, have you ever heard of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo?" and trying to argue them into going to a meeting with you so that you could shove a Gohonzon down their throat? How about the horror stories that my first husband grew up with, of people who left Soka Gakkai and died horrible deaths? How about the shunning that occurs when people leave SGI and/or NST?

That's my two cents.

J3nny3lf 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow... I'm sorry to read of such a negative experience. I can't blame you one bit for bailing on the SGI.


 * But I can tell you... I've never been asked for money. Ever.  My friend gave me her old Tribunes, without asking, until I told her to not bother as I'd gotten a subscription.  And the special campaigns for money- haven't seen a one in two years.


 * The charge for the Gohonzon was really quite inexpensive, IMO. The money not only goes for the scroll itself, but to sign you in as a member of the SGI- and let's face it, it costs money to keep track of people and have the kaikan and so forth.


 * But the brainwashing? I haven't seen that stuff, either.  I do all kinds of non-Gakkai stuff, and haven't ever done a shakubuku campaign like you mention.  When I helped organize a youth division weekened conference, we intentionally wrapped things up with enough time that people could get plenty of sleep and have free time to explore the camp we used.


 * Are the things you mentioned things that have happened? Sure.  That doesn't make them the standard, and they're reprehensible.  Those that carried them out made bad causes and will suffer the effects of their own karma.


 * And the SGI/Shoshu split does mystify me a bit. There's really no need for the outright hatred that I see at times; we choose to believe one thing, because we think we're right; and they choose to believe something else, for the same reason.  Ultimately, because we both chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, we'll figure out the Truth.  I think we can and should agree to disagree without the hate and anger that's seen.


 * But ultimately what you describe is simply not my experience, nor the experience of any of the SGI folks I've known. I do know that there's people out there who've suffered that stuff, and on behalf of myself and the SGI, I apologize.  You have every right to be angry and lash out, and I feel bad and ashamed that anyone calling themselves an SGI member was involved in it.


 * That said, it only gives me more determination to see to it that *my* SGI isn't like that. I'll have strong words with anyone who tries pulling that stuff on me, my friends, my district, my chapter, anyone I know or come across.  And ultimately what's right will win out as long as we're willing to stand up and say so when something is wrong.


 * Thank you for being willing to say so. Please feel free to chant, with or without the SGI.  What matters is your heart and mind and that you are happy and don't suffer.  If you find that by becoming a Catholic, hey, go be a Catholic!  :)  I'd rather you be a happy, enlightened Catholic than a suffering Buddhist.  But please find what works for you.


 * Yes, I'm an SGI member... my belief is that Nichiren Buddhism would work best. I think it's the truth.  But I'm not so locked into it that it blinds me to wanting what's best for people.  :)


 * --Enumclaw 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the SGI won't move on from the whole temple issue. It puts off a lot of potential converts who would otherwise see the SGI as a means for changing their lives. I have been a member of the SGI since 2005, and have never been asked for a dime. Of course, if you want to buy books, or subscriptions to their periodicals, that's your choice. I love what they do. As a gay man, they have accepted me for who I am. That's more than I can say for the Christian organizations I have been exposed to. Curethedolphins (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)John

"Cult" definition
This is my first time getting involved with a talk page or an edit, so if I am missing anything in terms of how things are done, please let me know.

The following is a problem:

'[Some]... have accused Soka Gakkai of engaging in cult practices. However, these criticisms are unfounded, as the definition of "cult" is, strictly, any religious organization that regards itself as the sole means of salvation. The SGI makes no such claim; moreover, it maintains that human harmony through dialogue with those who engage in other religious practices is the highest priority and the key to peace.'

The definition of "cult" here is totally inappropriate. Wikipedia does not support it. No dictionary I have found supports it. You could stop a thousand randomly selected native English speakers on the street and as for a definition of the word without hearing this one a single time. Actually, anything that begins with 'the definition of "cult"', with the definite article, is necessarily incorrect, given the multifaceted nature of the word.

Since I lack the background knowledge to reform the text above, I will strike it sometime in the next couple of days, absent a coherently stated objection. To me it seems not only inaccurate but disingenuous, which makes me doubt the rest of the article, but I leave that to those familiar with the topic.

219.37.242.186 10:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Drake Dun, Oct. 26, 2006 7:30 GMT+9

Okay, well, somebody else got there first. The new text is better, I guess.

219.37.242.186 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Drake Dun

Someone has reverted the edit, so I struck the offending text as I indicated I would in the beginning. Please make a case for its inclusion here before restoring it.

Drake Dun 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kofu Fund?
I'm a rather new member of Soka Gakkai in Canada and I wonder if people in other places are equally cajoled into donating several times a year for a "Kofu Fund" (money for Kosen Rufu)? At first I was told the donation was once a year, now it's twice and it seems as more time one has as a member, more times one is asked to 'donate.' Needless to say, as a person of limited financial means, this is becoming rather stressful. Seshanna Ibrahim.

Hi Seshanna,

I'm not sure what the guidelines are in Canada, I practice in the U.S., but President Ikeda stressed in his lecture at Harvard in the early '90's of the importance of an "inner-motivated" philosophy. As leaders, we are supposed to develop the wisdom as to how to encourage someone's inner monitor on how to live life. We are not supposed to didactically pressure another to do something trivial, like give money to a wealthy organization when that member is financially struggling. For the campaign this last May, we studied several Buddhist teachings on the spirit of offering. It is one's sincerity in offering that is important, not the amount, type (monetary, time & energy, etc.) or timeliness. Offering is a direct reflection of how we feel about our life and our Buddhist practice. When I am in financially tight situations, I offer between $0 and $25 per year and have never been approached in a negative or derogatory manner for doing so.

Please make it very clear how you would like to be spoken to on a one-to-one basis by your leaders. It is important to tell them what you're thinking and how you're feeling--they can't consider what they don't know of. I, and I imagine others that read from this site, will send you plenty of daimoku that your experience with the SGI is dynamic and filled with growth and happiness. Please strive to connect directly with President Ikeda and Nichiren Daishonin by studying their writings, chant and practice plenty, and live confidently and very true to yourself. Remember, you can influence the SGI as much as it can influence you. I've done it myself. All it took was sincerity, a willingness to look at myself as well as what I would like corrected, and plenty of daimoku. These are things that my Buddhist practice and Sensei have taught me, and I am grateful. As I practice and stand up for what I believe in, I lose my sense of fear of living in general. I have my struggles within and outside of the organization to thank for that.

I would really like to hear what success you have with approaching the subject of donating in your local area. Please write again if you can!

tjnebraska "learningbuddha@yahoo.com" Tjnebraska 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
added, as it seems to be controversial. Why?


 * too many SGI members editing the discredibility (hence, biased)
 * look at the discussion, it's a bunch of members, who do not sign in and just debate promote about the greatness of SGI
 * No accounts of criticisms, i.e. French laws, etc
 * reads like an ad(especially the external link areas)

I do not view that SGI is evil or bad. However, I do believe some member take too much liberty in promoting it, going to the extent of a propaganda or even religious fundamentalism. It is important that the Wiki article remains neutral, and view evidences from both sides.

note: I will not answer to people who does not sign in or leave IP's like the 2 above.

--sin-man 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sin-man

Sin-man, if a person writes of a pained view of their experience of the Soka Gakkai International, it's okay if others write of their positive experiences. If you can stop people from writing their negative views, then I would happily stop writing my positive views. I think it's probably better to accept that it's okay to have views--actually to be alive is to have subjective (and changeable) views. We'd better get used to this if we plan on remaining engaged in society or human in general.

Your view is biased by the way, although I don't particularly think you're wrong, or 'bad' for doing so. You wrote, "too many SGI members editing the discredibility (hence, biased)", but have you counted the number of entries that are pro-, neutral and anti-Gakkai? Including on the edit history page, the number of entries representing pro and con views is pretty much equal. You just wrote a biased and non-neutral statement.

If anyone would like to write me without taking away from what this page is supposed to do, which is hash out the neutrality of the Wikipedia Soka Gakkai International definition page, then please do. My address is: "learningbuddha@yahoo.com" Do not, however, try to censure my pro-Gakkai opinion when these talk pages have an equal number of negative Gakkai opinions.

DO expect me to be sympathetic to things that should not happen in the Gakkai, i.e. arm-twisting into joining, fanaticism, insensitivity to the unique financial situations of members. I am a district level leader in the US and I am very glad to hear of the exacerbating conditions of the membership in other regions. It makes me believe all more in creating an organization free from all these things.

(Questions: You marked my first entry as being non-neutral, but I was only responding to the numerous negative views of the Gakkai. Why was mine marked, but not theirs--the people that put their biased views down before me?  Now that I changed my signature, are you going to remove you declaration, or be fair and mark everyone else's biased statement?

Personally, I think it's futile to attempt to cleanse a talk page of biased statements. Where else are people to go to hash out an accurate "Gakkai experience?"

Why is it wrong if a person writes without signing in? To me, it doesn't change the content of what's written, or done to the SGI pages.)

tjnebraska, Tjnebraska 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

non objective
Seems like 95% of people writing here are members ... How could this article be objective? Since members seems to appreciate their way of life in a sect, they can't understand why others consider that particular way of life as a threat for liberty. I guess you better be members of S.G. than members of really dangerous organizations like ... i don't know let's say KKK or Hezbollah. But you should know that many people really enjoy freedom, which include freedom to have activities with any friends, to have friends from anywhere and not to be asked for money by your "friends". Spiritual support is free! It's everywhere, it's called the world. Sure you will soon realize that everyone is like you, human beings between 0 and 100 and something years old, and that nobody knows anything for sure! So you will have to choose what to think, using your own experience and rationality. You will have to choose who to agree or disagree with : philosophers, scientists, politicians, economists, priests, etc... And this choice should always be, to me, a personal choice. But we all know that everyone of us has been, and is still being, influenced by his environment. Readings, talks, etc... So when you start meeting the same people, talking to the same people ... you will be influenced by the same people. This is basically why soka gakkai members can't have an objective point of view here : they have been, and are still being, influenced to think that it is absolutely natural to have to be members of such a sect in order to be happy, or to have a spiritual life. Hope it will make some of you think ... but i'am not really sure if it will be any help.

I wanted to apologized if i sounded impolite (English isn't my mother tongue so I may sound rude). Plus, maybe some/many members of sect do actually need a spiritual support, or are not strong enough to find it where it is for free ... so I didn't want to blame you the way I probably did. I just hope that when you will get strong again (if you ever get strong again) it will not be too late (I mean : you will not have been too influenced to realize that you DO NOT NEED THEM, all you need is around you, it's the diversity of opinions you need in order to forge your own, in order to really be YOURSELF). For the weak I feel sorry.

Start of revamp of the 'Split with the Priesthood' Section
I figured I'd better start a new page because I would like for us to come up with a better NPOV representation of the split with the priesthood.

The previous wording 'Split with the Priesthood' said these things:

The fundamental practice of Soka Gakkai and SGI members is derived from Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, a form of Nichiren Buddhism.

This is arguable. After the SGI/NST (Nichiren Shoshu Temple) split, the SGI adopted its own fundamental practice specifically from Nichiren Daishonin's words. Nichiren Daishonin never declared himself a member of Nichiren Shoshu. Our new SGI practices remove the NST derivations from Nichiren Daishonin's direct recommendations.

This next section is most likely true and verifiable by both the SGI and NST. I wouldn't personally object to having this reintroduced, I'll attempt to reintroduce it where it will logically fit on the new page (if I get to it first.)

However, due to a number of ongoing issues and disputes that existed between the current high priest and the leadership of Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Shoshu's high priest excommunicated Soka Gakkai and SGI, and later SGI President Daisaku Ikeda in 1992. At that time, Soka Gakkai was a lay organization closely affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu.

The conflict from which this move stemmed had been growing throughout the late 1980s and especially during 1990, but its roots can be traced back to the very beginning of their relationship, in the 1930s. A turning point seems to have centered around the early 1970s when the Shōhondō ("Grand Main Hall"), a building in the Nichiren Shoshu Head Temple Taiseki-ji) compound, was being erected at the request of then-Soka Gakkai President Daisaku Ikeda, and with the financial support of Soka Gakkai and SGI membership.

This next section is completely NPOV, (the non-npov claimants in bold) therefore, removed; although I have no idea if the writers of the following are NST members.

The priesthood felt that Soka Gakkai had begun deviating from Nichiren Shoshu teachings and began to admonish its leaders to uphold the school's doctrines and practices in matters of faith. The priesthood believed that Soka Gakkai was trying to gain effective control over the priesthood, and rising friction and resentment on both sides came to a peak in the late 1970s. To some, the split seemed imminent.

From the perspective of the priesthood and its supporters, it appeared that most of the Soka Gakkai membership was ready to side with the priesthood, and they attribute to this the Soka Gakkai leadership's eventual backing down and apologizing to the priesthood and a subsequent vow to never again deviate from Nichiren Shoshu teachings. This took place at a leaders meeting at Taiseki-ji on November 7, 1978. On April 24, 1979, Ikeda stepped down as Soka Gakkai president to take responsibility, and the high priest (66th High Priest Nittatsu) decided to give the organization a chance to redeem itself.

From then on, Soka Gakkai officially upheld its promises, but it is said that in private, debate continued amongst members. There are said to have been frequent criticisms of the priesthood and followers of the priesthood were said to have been discouraged from associating with the temples. From the perspective of the priesthood, towards the end of 1990, Soka Gakkai's leadership again displayed open hostility towards the priesthood. This is said to have led to a heated exchange of documents demanding clarification of the other party's intentions.

These are probably the accurate dates, although I would have to check from both sides to be sure:

At the end of 1990, and effective from January 1, 1991, the priesthood stripped all top lay leaders, including Ikeda, of their leadership positions in the direct Nichiren Shoshu lay hierarchy;

But follows are more priesthood sided views:

the move seems to have been meant to be a warning that Nichiren Shoshu was serious.

The move seems to have meant something completely different to the SGI; therefore, this is a non NPOV.

More follows:

The priesthood frequently reminded Soka Gakkai leaders of their earlier promises and urged them to cease from challenging the role of the priesthood, but, according to Nichiren Shoshu reports, Soka Gakkai leaders continued to ratchet up their rhetoric, and the priesthood responded in kind.

A completely sided statement.

Each party blamed the other as initiator of the attacks. A final warning from the priesthood came in October 1991, but was rejected. It was followed by a public document on November 7 urging Soka Gakkai to voluntarily disband. Finally, on November 28, 1991, Nichiren Shoshu declared that it was dissociating itself from the Soka Gakkai and SGI organizations, effectively excommunicating the Soka Gakkai and SGI. Soka Gakkai Honorary Chairman and SGI President Ikeda was first personally excommunicated (removed from the Nichiren Shoshu believers roster) on August 11, 1992.

This section's language is riddled with non-neutral POV; better to leave it to the respective pro and anti SGI websites to hash out their POV rather than try to represent it here.

The ensuing years were marked by internal efforts to dissuade Soka Gakkai members from joining the temples, attempts to tempt Soka Gakkai members to join the temples, and counter-attempts to get those who did to leave. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by both parties charging everything from sexual improprieties to defamation of character

The above may be verifiable by both parties.

...and demanding everything from the return of previously made donations to apologies. As of November 2005, 172 lawsuits have closed and five are still in the courts.

Source?

In 1999, High Priest Nikken had the Shōhondō ("Grand Main Hall") demolished on the ground that it had been built and donated for what he termed ulterior motives instead of as an expression of faith, and he had it replaced with a building that the priesthood felt was more in line with its interpretation of its significance.

High Priest Nikken's view is a non-neutral POV.

This may be verifiable by both parties:

Other ferroconcrete temple buildings that had been partially or wholly built and donated by Soka Gakkai, foremost among them the Grand Reception Hall, were also replaced with ones of more traditional design. And a large number of sakura (cherry blossom) trees, also donated by Soka Gakkai members, were also cut down to make way for an open plaza.

The following comes from an earlier section on the page. It seems to touch on both POV's, although I'm perfectly fine with the POV's getting taken out completely.

SGI has been guided by Daisaku Ikeda since the death of Second President Josei Toda in 1958. A disciple of President Toda, Ikeda succeeded him in 1960 as Soka Gakkai president and became president of the larger Soka Gakkai International upon its creation in 1975. Ikeda is, however, a controversial figure in Japan. For example, when he challenged the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood on doctrinal grounds, his challenge was considered to be an act of heresy, particularly by a priesthood that viewed and asserted itself as the ultimate authority in Nichiren Shoshu doctrine. As a consequence, he stepped down as Soka Gakkai president in November 1979. According to Nichiren Shoshu followers, he did so to apologize for his organization's deviations from Nichiren Shoshu doctrine, by which, they claim, Soka Gakkai was bound at the time to observe by its rules of incorporation. Others suggest that it was the action of a man who did not want to be responsible for creating a rift among the practitioners. Regardless of the rationale, however, a division between the followers of Nichiren Shoshu, and those who aligned themselves with Ikeda's positions, did occur, and continues to be a source of controversy and disagreement amongst practitioners. Shortly after he stepped down, he became honorary chairman of Soka Gakkai in part as a response to Soka Gakkai members' dissatisfaction with his vacating of the presidency. As of December 2005 Ikeda remains honorary chairman of Soka Gakkai and president of SGI.

These are the things that have to be reworked for me to be happy with their neutrality. I'll do my best to reintegrate what is here and is neutral, but does anyone think it's best that the reader just follow the external links to get the two different versions?

Thank you for your time, Tjnebraska 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Er. I thought that Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism is what SGI members are practising?

Sorry, the message immediately above was from me. Angerona 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Angerona,

Nichiren Buddhism is what the SGI practices, Nichiren 'Shoshu' delineates a specific temple affiliation of priests and practitioners. I think this is what you were asking...what the difference is in "Nichiren Buddhism" vs. "Nichiren Shoshu", is this correct?

The SGI (an organization of lay practioners) and Nichiren Shoshu (the organization for priests) became afiliated in 1928 (when Makiguchi and Toda joined) and completely separated from each other in 1991. During that period, the Soka Gakkai adopted pretty much all of Nichiren Shoshu's doctrine and religious practices, while creating several of its own for the laity. Since the 1991 split, the SGI discarded a great deal of doctrine and redefined practices that were taught specifically by the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood (as opposed to what was drawn directly from Nichiren's writings) and Nichiren Shoshu also made changes in it's practices and doctine. The changes to doctrine that they have tried out support the complete authority of a high priest. The SGI rejects this and asserts that Nichiren (the 13th c. monk with whom Nichiren Buddhism originated) never supported the authority of a priest (over a practitioner). The SGI still supports some doctine taught by Nichiren Shoshu that is not taught by other Nichiren organizations, however.Tjnebraska 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cult NPOV
I'm new to this article, having just stumbled upon it. I see that the NPOV tag has been up since October at least. Is there any ongoing discussion about how to fix the article's NPOV issues? Because I can certainly see a significant one in the description of Soka Gakkai as a "cult".

I read in the archive where this was defended as the article referring to Soka Gakkai as having been accused of being a cult, but this is not borne out by the article's actual text. The actual text includes phrasing such as, "is the international cult organization" (declarative, not attributed) and "The cult..." (also declarative, not attributed).

May I ask what source we have that Soka Gakkai has been described as a cult organization? I don't see the links, but then maybe I missed them. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ANSWER: France has denounced the Soka Gakkai as a Cult in several parliamentary reports on cults and cult-like movements. These reports were published in 1982, 1985 and 1999. Several web sites exist that talk about this, including several in the USA, I will only cite two: Factnet and Prevensectes
 * Neither of your sources are helpful to me. The factnet.org page on Soka Gakkai is a collection of broken links and 404 errors.  The site at http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu functions, but it does NOT describe SGI as a cult, but rather an NRM.  The other sites - cebunet and its successor sg-eye.com, members.rotfl.com, freedomofmind.com - all no longer function or do not have pages on SGI (404).  The link on SGI's political involvement is now a redirect to SGI's official site.


 * This leaves the website toride.org, which not only fails to cite its sources, but strikes me as being of the tinfoil deflector beanie school of paranoia rather than a scholarly explanation. It is long on rant about SGI's plans for world domination, short on evidence.


 * Prevensectes.com is not useful to me because I do not speak French. Is there an English version of the site available, perhaps?


 * Do you have any other sources on the claim that SGI is a cult? Because my interest is now definitely piqued.  Kasreyn 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kasreyn, I think the best way to find out if SGI is a cult is to go to several meeting over a reasonable span of time. 'Encountering the Dharma' by Richard Seager gives a good academic look at SGI practices, I understand.

Take care and best regards, tjnebraska Tjnebraska 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the question of cult status may not be the right question. Most religions began as cults so you will not be able to find any one definitive source that can claim that Soka Gakkai is a cult or not. It's better to focus discussion on facts about how the organization runs. Daisaku Ikeda, for instance, might be seen as a charismatic leader (could be sign of a cult). But then we have to take another look at the pope and Catholicism. I'm not a big fan of ideological fanaticism, but that's a blanket property of most organized religions (or cults). If you find a way around that to examine the Soka Gakkai's ideological fanaticism, then maybe the you could include that.DaijuDavid 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * France's definition of "cult" is very finely tuned and deserves serious attention. It lays out ten criteria, and each of these is in itself well defined. And a Japanese scholar called Asami Sadao, who has been involved in counseling people who want to leave the Unification Church—i.e., Moonies—has defined a further eight. In his Cult toshite no Sokagakkai=Ikeda Daisaku (カルトとしての創価学会=池田大作: "Sokagakkai, the Daisaku Ikeda cult"), investigative journalist Furukawa Toshiaki analyzes the applicability of these 18 criteria to Soka Gakkai, concluding that nine out of France's ten apply; I haven't finished reading his analysis of Asami's eight additional ones. I hope to report back here when I have, though. In any case, the extent to which other organizations/religions display the same cult-like traits as Soka Gakkai (charismatic leader, ideological fanaticism, etc) in no way justifies them in Soka Gakkai's case; in fact, that they exist in other organizations underscores the need to examine their extent within Soka Gakkai, and to put Soka Gakkai under the microscope to determine to what extent Soka Gakkai encourages or discourages them in practice (i.e., not in print or in public settings, but in private, among insiders). HTH, Jim_Lockhart 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important for us to find a good neutral source that discusses the vast differences between SGI and other forms of buddhism. Everything I can say on the subject is "original research" and wikipedia frowns on that, big time. For what it's worth, I was "recruited" into SGI (in the United States) as I was participating in a drug recovery program. I chose to follow another path in buddhism very quickly. While I can certainly see how this organization would be denounced as a "cult" (which has a negative connotation in the United States), I don't think it's proper for a wikipedia to label this organization as a "cult" in general definitive terms. The word "cult" is very negative and since SGI has not broken any laws nor have they been involved in doing physical harm to anyone (that I'm aware of), I would suggest we post a special category called "criticism" and display a few well-sourced items under that category so as not to ignore all the negative criticism but still being fair to the people who just want to learn more about SGI or who are proud members. If you are considering a resolution to this dispute, it might be helpful to read the talk pages on Scientology and the group called "Anonymous" that protests against Scientology because the issues raised (NPOV, defining "cult") are very similar. It's difficult with Buddhism, it would be improper to refer to SGI as a "denomination" because karmic religions do not have that kind of structure. I'm not sure that the word "sect" is correct either. 76.110.233.130 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to Jim Lockhart
I wanted to let you know that I only wanted to remove opinionated, unsourced and un-neutral material. I thought Wikipedia supported this. I wasn't trying to remove things that were factual because they were "inconvenient to SGI/Ikeda". Opinions in those sections were greatly interspersed with fact and the whole section had to be rewritten. I'm glad you had time to rewrite and I'm fine with what you contributed. My inability to write an historically accurate version that replaced the opinionated versions were due to my not having time to do research, not because of something being 'inconvenient'. I didn't like your inferrence on the history page, it alludes to my action as being subversive when it wasn't. Please don't do that again.

Tjnebraska Tjnebraska 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, what is the source "Shimada" that you base your inclusion of the sentence about 'many leaders' viewing President Ikeda as greater than Nichiren? There are more leaders in the Org. that would find that belief completely erroneous and blasphemous. There are just as many sources that would find this belief to be wrong. I think you should consider leaving this opinionated material off the site. If you would like, I will get an official statement from SGI-USA leadership saying that the belief of these 'many leaders' is just false and wrong. It's better to leave opinionated, albeit sourced, junk off the Wiki website. If we get into a sourced opinion war, it would just be spam and it would be wrong.

Tjnebraska 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The source "Shimada" is listed among the the sources and references towards the end of the article. The material you have deleted is not opinion; it described historical fact. Nor is my version presented in an opinionated manner. Of course you can get a statement from SGI-USA leaders saying that "the belief of [those] 'many leaders' is just false and wrong"—Soka Gakkai had to renounce that belief in 1979. It's one of the things Ikeda took responsibility for when he resigned as SG president in 1979. As far as I'm concerned, the whole article needs to be heavily rewritten because it is heavily skewed to present Soka Gakkai/SGI in a positive light. For example, there is no mention anymore (note that word: it's operative here) of all the scandals in Japan the Soka Gakkai has been behind, starting with the active repression of perceived negative publications starting back in the late 60s to huge financial irregularities in the late 80s and early 90s to relentless harassment of former members from the early 90s to the present.  I realize that SG/SGI is important to you and many others participating here, and I believe you (plural you) should contribute to this article with SGI's side of the story(/ies), but the repeated deleting of material inopportune to SGI (read the several pages of archived discussions here for the broader context) to be annoying. It is unfair to people who come to Wikipedia to learn about SG/SGI—for instance, because a family member is about to join—because it robs them of a concise yet maximally complete picture of the organization. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I think it's okay to give an historically accurate factual presentation to wikiviewers; I'm not against that. I am against the inclusion of sourced facts that are misleading, when there are sourced facts that prove the opposite. For instance, your sourced fact relies on erroneous belief and activity from almost thirty years ago. The inclusion of outdated material is misleading since the SGI is relatively quick to correct wrong action and trends in the org. especially when compared to other religious organizations. I clarified your fact by Shimada by pointing out that those opinions were circulating prior to 1979 when President Ikeda stepped down as SG president. One thing I notice missing in the descriptions of why President Ikeda stepped down is that he wanted to put a end to the circulation of ridiculous inferrences that he was superior to Nichiren Daishonin. It's obvious to a person with a correct understanding of SGI Buddhism that Nichiren and Ikeda are two completely different historical figures with two completely different lives and backgrounds. It's impossible to declare President Ikeda as superior to the Daishonin when President Ikeda did not live in 13th century Japan and he did not define Buddhism for the Latter Day of the Law in a feudal society. His life wasn't threatened repeatedly (including the years of life-threatening exile), although Makiguchi and Toda's were. President Ikeda's demonstration of the validity of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism lies in a completely different context than that of Nichiren. There is no point in thinking President Ikeda is superior to Nichiren. Nichiren's accomplishment and life cannot be superseded in light of Nichiren Buddhism and President Ikeda's accomplishments over the last fifty years never would have occurred if it weren't for Nichiren.

Again, if you are going to refer to occurrences that are almost thirty years old, please include that in your facts. Otherwise, your facts are misleading when they do not at all describe the SGI of today. Tjnebraska 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tjnebraska. Thanks for taking the time to reread my changes. I find persuasive your argument for inserting "1979" where you did, as the reader would otherwise have to wait till he or she got through the next two sentences to get a time bearing. Good call; thanks! That said, I do not believe my description was or is misleading—just poorly presented as so the time frame. As for the rest of your comment, I'm having difficulty following your logic and grasping its bearing on the article. You seem to be rationalizing away Soka Gakkai leaders' presentation of Ikeda as the True Buddha by saying that the whole idea is so ridiculous that it couldn't have happened. I agree that the idea is ridiculous, but the incident nevertheless did happen. Ikeda's apology and resignation, and Soka Gakkai's recanting of the notion that Ikeda was equal to, was the reincarnation of, or superceded the True Buddha (i.e., Nichiren) notwithstanding, all indications were that the concept was both condoned by Ikeda and spread through the organization systematically. Soka Gakkai admitted as much in a booklet it published and distributed to all members at the time (I wish I still had my copy!) as well as in issue no. 6056 (April 24, 1979) of its Seikyo Shimbun organ. Likewise with the notion that The Human Revolution was the "current-day" gosho. And if the Seikyo Shimbun and other Gakkai publications in Japan are anything to go by, the notion is still alive and well in the form of members' practice of referring to Ikeda as their "master for life" or their "life's master" —called jinsei no shi (人生の師). I note that in its English publications, SGI prefers "mentor" to "master," but I'm sure the content is the same, especially with the more zealous members.  This incident is significant because in Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, these actions are analogous to someone in Christianity claiming to be the second coming of Christ and that his writings were the Bible of today.  Of course, there are numerous other incidents—many totally unrelated to anything doctrinal—that could be enumerated as examples of why Ikeda in controversial, and they can be easilly substantiated from numerous sources.  Personally, I think this article—which is supposed to be about SGI—focuses too much on Ikeda and his "accomplishments," and that the article so quickly moves in praise-Ikeda gear, is itself very telling evidence that, in essence, Soka Gakkai/SGI is a huge fan club focused on Ikeda. The article would do well enough to describe how Soka Gakkai (in Japan) and SGI (everywhere else) are, in and of themselves, controversial and why. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm glad we both agree on a presentation of time in conjunction with fact. I guess on point of my argument is to hold us to what we're doing currently in the SGI. Our organization is constantly evolving to keep up with what is the most productive for our respective cultures and most value creative. Some wrong that occurred in the Gakkai 30 years ago simply does not represent the Gakkai today--there are absolutely no evidences of that erroneous belief. The Gakkai isn't the same as it was 10 years ago. There are enormous changes we are taking in our approach to the Buddhist philosophy in our post-priesthood days.

I would definitely love to see evidence that President Ikeda accepted leaders inferring that his efforts and writings were superior to Nichiren's as being correct. Shimada may have given a scholarly interpretation of why President Ikeda stepped down, but unless we include direct quotes from President Ikeda, we can't remotely attempt to understand the significance of his resignation. I strongly believe President Ikeda stepped down in part to say loudly and clearly "These actions are not appropriate", NOT "I admit that I've been promoting or agreeing with these actions". Many leaders do many stupid (and human) things in the organization, but these actions are wrong and they are corrected. President Ikeda takes responsibility for things, but he isn't saying he condones the wrongs that were being committed.

I don't understand the significance of holding us to our (very old esp. in terms of how young our org. is) mistakes instead of our corrections. Part of my argument in including sourced facts is 1. at least give our corrections equal weight in representation and 2. realize the list of mistakes and corrections, pros and cons to the org. (with sources) would be probably a mile or more in length. Is this what we're supposed to do with Wikipedia? The users here that think the controversy ought to be a completely different wikitopic I think really have it right.

Yes, there is enormous focus on President Ikeda as the foremost interpreter of SGI Buddhism. Yes, he promotes the action of taking a lifelong mentor and encourages members to look at his accomplishments to consider him as a mentor. Yes, this is a controversial theme to many people. It is a topic that requires a great deal of conversation and dialogue for most people to understand. One thing I always like to point out to those that find it controversial is that not a single person that I know admires President Ikeda blindly. They admire him after he earned that member's or (non-member's) respect. I also tell people that I was born into the practice, but I did not take President Ikeda as my mentor until 3 years ago, when I was 31. I did not praise him or adore him prior to that. People on the outside of what they view as a cult of personality haven't received a direct effect of emulating President Ikeda's efforts or trying to learn from his example. This is absolutely okay, but it is wrong to think we do this because we blind or whatever.

There should be a way to bring up controversy of the SGI on the wikipage in a satisfactory manner for both SGI members and others, but it really would have to be very limited because the back and forth evidences would take up an enormous amount of space.

Also, I personally would consider your evidences to be more appropriate if you focused on controversies of maybe the last seven years--if you were current. But please look to how we correct things very swiftly. We should be commended for always striving to do what's correct. Every religious organization in the world should be following the model of quickly correcting what runs counter to the good of the population and common sense. Of course, at times we have to prove what common sense really is--common sense changes on a regular basis as well to keep up with socio-scientific discovery.

I would definitely be happy to speak with you more on any SGI related topic or anyone, because I think the 'controversies' are real. I'm interested in correcting what the organization does that is wrong. So are many, many other members.

President Ikeda isn't the only example of a modern human that puts forward an exceptional amount of energy to create bridges of understanding between differing ideologies and philosophies. To SGI members, President Ikeda is an exceptional human that demonstrates how far a person can go with Nichiren Buddhism, but the organization absolutely does not promote that he is better than Nichiren, or Shakyamuni, or is his reincarnation. If the SGI President took this stance, then that would be controversial indeed and worthy of scrutiny. Until then, if it's just a delusional leader or many saying so, then I'll point out the error in promoting those beliefs. Most leaders and members I know would.

Best to you, Jim. You don't seem like a frivolous person; I appreciate your contributions to the SGI article a great deal. Tjnebraska 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC) learningbuddha@yahoo.com

We've touched on this subject already
The Discussion pages should have some refs to Opus Dei, the analogous quasi-religious political sect in Italy. Soka Gakkai, as Opus Dei, is a fascist political grouping clad in religious garb.

71.202.44.80 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Tucho


 * Tucho, we've been over this topic considerably already in the talk archives. The material that you included is biased material and biased material is what we're trying to get rid of in this article and in Wikipedia in general.  The sites that you have taken quotes from are not considered to be scholarly and unbiased sources, but several SGI members, that are Wikiusers are fine with having those sites listed anyway.  Readers of the SGI article are free to go to these sources.  The "Rick Ross Institute" has a huge disclaimer on what it calls a cult and isn't very reputable, or scholarly.  The SGI is not free from human error and stupidity--I think we've covered this in these archives, but that doesn't mean the SGI doesn't have it's merits.  The SGI always strives to correct the wrongs being committed by its membership.  Please start a wikiarticle on "Opus Dei", if you would like, and feel free to include a link on Opus Dei on the SGI article under 'critical websites'.  It's very important that you stick to reputable sources, however, otherwise, you can rest assured that you entries will always be edited and challenged until you get it right.  If you visit SGI.ORG, you will find that we have won pretty much all libel cases that were unfairly brought against us.  You can follow the sgi websites to get to the governmental sources that are not biased by the SGI.  It is not credible for you to speak of the lawsuits brought against the SGI if you are not going to also post the outcomes of each of those ambiguous cases you mention.  Use reputable sources, please!  Also, sokaspirit.org references quite a few of the lawsuits brought against the SGI and the outcomes.


 * I understand the French government has declared the SGI a cult. I am fine with the reputably sourced material on that being posted, but rest assured, the French government will be changing its position on the SGI once it realizes that we are a humanistic organization that comes to the aid of our respective countries in times of need.  The government just needs more opportunities to see us in action.


 * The book, 'A Public Betrayed: An Inside Look at Japanese Media Atrocities and Their Warnings to the West' (Hardcover) by Adam Gamble (Author) & Takesato Watanabe, gives warning about using the Japanese media, especially their magazines, as an honest and factual source for several stories concerning the SGI. Please find material that comes from the respective governments.


 * Take care,
 * Tjnebraska 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

the following paragraph is in complete violation of Wikipedia. Internet sites are not considered scholarly or credible sources.

Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International are perceived by critics to be a cult or of being a "cult-like group." Critical Internet sites are located below; these detail disproportionately numerous legal battles and charges that have been brought against the organization and its members. There are concerns that Soka Gakkai has placed an emphasis on recruitment, that it "demonizes perceived opponents", and "uses phobia indoctrination and peer pressure". Some critics also assert that the organization places emphasis on "dependence on the organization" of SGI for one's spiritual advancement. The organizations, their representatives, and membership deny the accusations.

I put this in the SGI article to attempt to be fair, but until credible sources are utilized, then it's fair for this to be taken out as well.

Critics accuse the Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International as being a cult or "cult-like group." Critics find that the Soka Gakkai has placed an emphasis on recruitment and that it demonized Nikken Abe, the former High Priest of the Nichiren Shoshu Temple.

I'm leaving it in because it can most likely be found from a credible source to be true. The rest of this paragraph is just garbage filled with violation of wikipedia in using unreputable internet sites as source. The only person that I know of that we have officially 'demonized' as an organization would be Nikken Abe. It can probably be easily found in reputable sources that he was viewed as "the Devil King of the SIxth Heaven" by the organization, but from what I understand, this label was only true while Nikken was in power. I for one, am an SGI member and I do not deny that I demonized Nikken Abe, while he was the High Priest of NST after excommunicating us, so, the last sentence of Tucho's contribution above is not true. You're on your own in finding credible sources for this stuff, although, if I come across older material from when Nikken was in charge of the NST that labels him as such, I'll be sure to pass it your way.

To Jim Lockhart in particular, please read "A Public Betrayed" because I believe you may have quoted from unreliable sources according to Gamble's premise in this book. The Japanese media, from which you source your quotes, is in many instances highly unreliable.Tjnebraska 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "demonized"?
Hello, Jim.

It is unfortunately true that in the SGI, there is a tendency to demonize all other forms of Buddhism. I found this out when I started dating, and eventually married a man who practices Zen Buddhism. Several members attacked his practice, sometimes to his face, but more often, they would tell me how awful it was, suggesting that he wasn't acheiving his goals in life because he was practicing Zen.

Not only did these comments not serve to "save" him, as I suppose they were intended, but they made me feel as though I constantly had to defend him. Over time, I just got tired of going to SGI meetings, because I never knew where the next attack would come from, and the attacks made me weary.

Apparently there is some part of the Gosho that declares that all other forms of Buddhism are false. I have been told that this is why members of the SGI feel it is their duty to badmouth my husband for being a Zen practictioner. But, in the end, it has made me feel as though I must choose between the SGI and my marriage. And that is a not a choice that a self-proclaimed "tolerant" organization should ask a person to make.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Papiewski

Hi Jim,

Thank you for the note letting users know you're getting sources. What is your definition of "demonized" and are you planning on portraying the actions of the general membership, or do you plan to represent the actions of the higher levels of leadership in the organization including President Ikeda?

Some of the general membership and lower level leaders many times act on their own interpretation of doctrine and study material. Many members rebuke the wrong actions of bullying, peer pressure or force in the SGI. We know some members behave this way, and we work hard to correct it.

I don't hold the Pope or Catholicism responsible for the wrong actions of a Catholic; I would like it if all of SGI wasn't held responsible for the wrong actions of a fraction of our membership. (I also do not hold Islam responsible for the actions of Al-Queda, etc.) I hope you use recent source material, because we've worked hard to rebuke forceful behavior. I do think it may be good for members to see that we are viewed this way--it may help certain people that do rely on bullying at times to think twice about what they are doing.

Thank you for your consideration, Tjnebraska 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the soka gakkai members that edit this page need to just accept that the organization is not real buddhism, it is about as buddhist as jehova's witnessing or scientology is Christian. As long as you try to censor the truth about Ikeda, and his other gohonzon money-fleecing cadre's actions, you will keep having to reedit out the real truth, which wikipedia tends to get to anyway. Save yourselves the trouble. Try studying ACTUAL buddhism and then taking a look at the page with an educated look.Wwilson 1 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * TJ: I haven’t replied to your query above yet because I’ve been preoccupied with a few other things (on Wikipedia, other articles) and because I want to give you a well–thought-out and substantiated reply; that will take a little time. In any case, my definition of demonization is, I believe, the usual dictionary one. The best “source” for this assertion is not what others have published, but Soka Gakkai’s own books and publications here in Japan, including the Sōka Shimpō and Seikyō Shimbun newspapers, which are both notorious for their sections and articles that rip Gakkai opponents and critics—especially former leaders and politicians who have left the organization—to shreds. They go far beyond refuting or rationally criticizing these people, and use language totally unbecoming to any public organization, let alone a religious one. Ikeda himself, in his speeches, uses expressions like “eliminate from this world,” “doom to hell for all eternity,” and “stamp out ... enemies.” How much of this reaches members outside Japan, I cannot say because I don’t know. And thanks for your concern about my sources and any dependence on my part on ones lacking credibility. But I am well aware of how the Japanese media work and generally have a good idea of when and when not to trust them; I hope you are not trying to imply that Soka Gakkai’s own media are any more credible. More later, when I have time.  Wwilson: While I essentially agree with your sentiments, inflammatory comments such as this one are not constructive and tend to invite a barrage of comments to this page that are generally irrelevant to the article. That, too, is not in Wikipedia’s interests. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim: I appreciate that you believe those sort of inflammatory comments are not constructive when it comes to the over all goal of Wikipedia. Though I do find it troubling that you agree with Wwilson's sentiment.  The actual daily practice of an SGI member is not one of avid fanaticism, but rather, daily reflection and a constantly constructive process of developing one's one own compassion for his or her own life as well as all those around them.  This is what the SGI reinforces to its members, study and daily practice.  So, I'm taken aback a bit when you 'essentially agree with' the sentiments such as 'it is about as Buddhist as Jehovah's witnessing or Scientology is Christian' for that is simply an ideological attack without basis or logical reason.  Now, I understand that you used the word 'essentially' and Wwilson doesn't communicate how or why you feel the way you do, but by passively agreeing you invite a form of validation to his slanderous remarks.  I appreciate that you do take the time, however, to carefully articulate your point.  I only hope that in the future you're perhaps a bit more... careful (?) when you decide to agree.  Best wishes to all! Severinswinehart 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thank you for responding. I think I do trust that you know which articles from Japanese media are reputable. Please do read that book. Rhetoric is fierce in Japan because corruption is fierce. Some of this is shared with the SGI-USA, but mostly, these refutations are mostly part of the Soka Gakkai. Perhaps these things you are addressing are most apt for the Soka Gakkai wikiarticle, because it is particular to what is happening in Japanese culture and politics. I'm fine if you want to include these things here, though, because I believe they are true and I certainly have encountered relentlessly mean people (once in a blue moon) that I do want out of the organization, but this really is more of a Soka Gakkai issue. Each organization practices according to the respective cultural climate of its country. The U.S. media is in relatively good check--the court systems are penalized when corruption occurs and US culture in general doesn't condone political and financial corruption as in Japan. Yes, I do think the Soka Gakkai International's official media sites and publications are credible, and are more credible than Japanese weeklies and media. But again, I trust that you know which articles are reputable from those sources. I'm half Japanese and keep in touch with my Japanese relatives and friends (none back in Japan are SG members) and I see (and study) how the social climate of Japan is just really difficult in several arenas. From my discussions and study, and the experiences of my friends, "bullying" is a very common practice in Japanese culture and continues from childhood to old age. These kinds of cultural traits have then of course seeped their way into the organization in Japan (my uncle was a victim of this behavior, in conjunction with being lured into financial compromise by an SG leader) and these are the things that President Ikeda and the like unleash scathing criticism of. They should be fierce in putting down this kind of corrupt behavior that begins in Japanese culture and finds its way into our organization. These things really don't happen at this level in the U.S.

Wayne, obviously you've been compromised. President Ikeda doesn't even see the financial records of the Soka Gakkai organizations. I'm assuming you are getting you information from Nichiren Shoshu, or the Japanese media (or friends from Japan that are influenced by these things). If you are referring to old articles from Time or Forbes, we successfully refute everything. Forbes recanted on all of the points that the SG demanded they amend. Please look at SGI.ORG and follow links until you arrive at 'media rebuttals'. President Ikeda doesn't get a single dime, or yen for Gohonzon issues and offerings to receive the Gohonzon are extremely small and go directly to pay for costs in the organization.

You sound like an interesting person after looking into your user page. I love Leo Tolstoy's books and have been influenced by Jung. I also like writing--I've been talking to friends in the industry about how to submit screenplays. I'm sorry that you don't believe I practice Buddhism. I won't attempt to decide if you practice Christianity. I only hope that you are happy and well and enjoy meeting all kinds of people.Tjnebraska 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A link for 'praises'
Hello there, I was hoping to create a link to a page that cites praises of President Ikeda and the SGI. For now, I just put two on the main article because citation of the claim of praise for the SGI was requested. I hope instead to create a link for praises instead of quote them in the main article. I can probably figure out how to do this, but if anyone can direct me to instructions, please let me know.

Thank you, Tjnebraska 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better if someone neutral work on this article instead of writing one long commercial for the organization.

Considering Buddhism is properly known as the way of "The Thus Come One" it's easy to see how someone entangled in worldly affairs could mistake it for a commercial...

Reginald Cottle--69.20.233.99 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ichinen Sanzen
As I saw in other discussions, Ichinen Sanzen is believed to be a seperate group of believers. Ichinen Sanzen is actually the Japanese term for, "Three Thousand Realms In A Single Moment of Life." It is one of the beliefs that a person can experience the ten worlds in a single moment of life. It is a belief of the Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai doctrines. I am an SGI member and I know this.

This article needs a lot of work
Personally, I think that the Criticism of Soka Gakkai POV fork should be merged into the article, and the places where the undefined "critics" weasel-word is used must be changed to refer to sourced criticism (since one has to be specific about which critics are being referred to when attributing opinion). I also think the article needs a more coherent structure, as it is somewhat badly organised as relates to the presentation of material. In places the article is NPOV enough, but in other places it has rather a POV flavour (both for and against the SGI) giving the article a sort of "split personality". What needs to happen here is that the pro-SGI and anti-SGI POVs need to be placed side-by-side in the prose, and both criticisms and positive claims need to be rigorously sourced to where they come from. In some places, the POV material also needs to be eradicated.

I would be happy to make these changes but I am highly reticent to do so as I fear that I may be accused of POV pushing (since I am an SGI member). However, I would like to pre-empt this, and make it clear that I don't have any interest in "flying the flag" for the SGI here on Wikipedia; my only interest is that it is a well-written article. I am writing here as I would like to know whether people think my proposal above sounds satisfactory and, if so, whether it is OK for me to go ahead and implement it. On the other hand, if other editors here would not approve of an SGI member editing this article, I shall not bother, as I would simply be wasting my time if it will be immediately reverted. Thanks a lot. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

sgi article
i am an sgi member and practicing nichiren buddhist. the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. Yes its true that some sgi members may hold in negative view or even demonize those who would oppose their efforts, this may include past members. But who's view is this? In buddhism one must always refer to the law, not the person- and the law states that we perceive things according to our life condition. Neutrality is not possible when attached to any particular ambition. It is always ones karma which drives one out of sgi. But sgi members are only human and have karma also, as does a group or region or how about us all? ie. "Global Warming" is humanity's shared karma. Why does sgi have 15 million members in over 190 countries? Because with the situations of violence and warfare, terrorism,poverty, ignorance & indifference, homelessness and addiction, we can't afford to get caught up in our petty differences because these things threaten us all. those who are unwilling or unable to comprehend let alone uphold the tennents of 'many in body and one in mind', would undoubtededly hold an opposing view and if one would look closer one may see ...ego. Buddhism when viewed correctly, teaches us about the nature of all of these these things. but how does one know if they hold a correct view? Didnt Jesus say 'let the example of the people speak for itself'. we all posess the innate ability to choose and decide for ouselves. sometimes when we look in the mirror we are faced with obstacles that we'd rather not have to face, sometimes enough even to send the best of them running. choose wisely

````