Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of negative material from intro unacceptable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction & the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  May 2006 

message: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  brainwashing, my experience 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soka Gakkai 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Cult" definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kofu Fund? 

message: 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 debatepromote 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Start of revamp of the 'Split with the Priesthood' Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Note to Jim Lockhart

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is your definition of "demonized"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A link for 'praises' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs a lot of work