Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Who needs a love poem? Give me NPOV!

I came here to get the cold, hard facts about SGI, not read a love poem to Nichiren. This article is screaming bias. For having two sections about criticism of SGI, there's almost nothing concrete about those criticisms given- what critics actually complain about is barely even mentioned! Furthermore, a neutral POV does not start a paragraph with "Unfortunately, critics of SGI and Ikeda are suspicious that he is considered..." This article shouldn't care what critics are suspicious of, so the 'unfortunately' is a huge sign of bias. Also, if quotation marks are going to be used in the criticisms section, they should actually quote something substantial- as opposed to putting individual words in quotes to make them sound sarcastic.

-a concerned reader who wants an objective POV.

Apologies if you are not getting what you want as there are plenty of SGI apologetists about who like to edit whatever criticisms they don't like. Yes, the criticism are still in the article if you read carefully. Anyway, it would be preferable that you identify yourself in the discussion page. As far as I know there are plenty of Nichiren Shoshu members out to discredit SGI, so we really need people who can help make the article NPOV.-Gammadion 05:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Gammadion, you sometimes seem to be quite interested in discrediting SG yourself—and NS as well, I suppose—so you don't exactly have clean hands in the wishing-to-discredit department. But I digress: If NS members' criticisms of SG are congruent with the truth and they are presented coolly and in good faith, does NS members' having made them in any way diminish their legitimacy?

The article is, in its present form, quite mealy-mouthed in its criticisms of SGI because (an) SGI member(s) have softened them. Since you wrote many of them, it's up to you to write them in a credible manner, which you have as yet not done. You have made accusations and charges, some of them very valid, but yourself not stated them in an NPOV manner or backed them up with credible sources. This has left your criticisms, regardless of their validity, open to questions of their own credibility.

The SGI article needs to:

• describe how SGI sees itself, what it aspires to be, and how it wants to be seen,
• describe how the rest of the world sees SGI, and
• describe pros and cons about SGI,

all in as neutral and factual manner as possible. This means getting rid of emotive wording, sarcasm, and partisan-sounding phrasing. It means dispensing with overdone social and courtesy titles and gushing praise, particularly of leaders. And it means suppressing the urge to lash out at people we disagree with on this talk page while we figure out how to reflect all our perspectives in the article.

As it says in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (which I suggest we all read once more), this is not a chat room, and we're not supposed to use it as a soapbox. If we do otherwise, we're defeating the purpose of Wikipedia by making it useless to people who "c[o]me here to get the cold, hard facts about SGI." Jersey_Jim 12:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this for some time now. I think that part of the problem is that a great many of the "criticisms of the SGI" wind up actually being criticisms of the SGI's *opinions* or stances on various issues. This, to me, is like criticizing the Catholic Church because they don't allow female priests; it's a point of their theology, and (IMO) doesn't belong in this article.

I think that this article needs a seriously thourough house-cleaning. It should talk about what the SGI is and what it isn't. SGI is, at heart, a religious organization made up of lay people who believe in Nichiren Buddhism. The history of the SGI should be pretty basic, the rebuilding of it after WWII, the timeline of the split with the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood, etc.

People coming to this page should get the basics. They don't want to read about theological arguments or discussions about the mentor-disciple relationship; if need be, that can be on another page. That said, the basics do include some controversy; however, it's very difficult for people to write a fair article if they're emotionally involved. The problem here is that anyone who cares enough to bother writing the article probably IS emotionally involved.  :)Enumclaw 08:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies again,Jimmy and Enumclaw, I really wish I can do better. I will try and remove the long-winded apologetic remarks from the main article and make it concise so it can represent both SGI and critics viewpoints. In respects to the SGI-NS problems, I was once caught up in a real life SGI-NS flamewar that nearly degenerated into a fisticuff melee, so you might say I am kind of apprehensive now of both sides.-Gammadion 07:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's just it- the article doesn't NEED to "represent both SGI and critics viewpoints". The article should simply tell what SGI is, the basics of what SGI members believe, its basic history, and facts about the organization.

A paragraph or two saying that SGI (or its original form, SG in Japan) has had some controversy and what the issues were WITHOUT DISCUSSING the various sides' viewpoints or arguments ON those issues would be appropriate. I mean, I'm now an SGI member, but when I was first investigating it before I started chanting one of the first places I came was here to Wikipedia. I didn't want to read *either* side of, say, the temple issue argument or whether or not SGI's professed support for freedom of religion is in conflict with the Rissho Ankoku Ron; I wanted some facts and to know the basics about it.

I think we need to let people think for themselves; if we say "there is a controversy over XXX issue, here's links to both sides of the arguments" that's enough. I've been considering rewriting this entire article myself, but as an SGI member I'm not sure if I even trust *myself* to do it justice. Perhaps we need to start from scratch and first do an outline, then fill it in, and have a joint new-and-improved version of the page.--Enumclaw 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can buy into this. I agree with Enumclaw's suggestion that saying "there is a controversy over XXX issue, here's links to both sides of the arguments" should be enough. Then only people who are interested in those arguments need to wade through them. This is not a matter of silencing anyone or anything, it's a matter of putting information in its appropriate place for people to access as they want.

Fwiw, I do not think the details of the SG/SGI–NS/priesthood dispute belong on the article pages of these respective organizations, either. The dispute, or—more accurately—history of disputes, should have its own article. (Dunno whether I want to have anything to do with that one, though.)

And Gammadion, in my opinion you're doing okay with your contributions. Please don't take my comments negatively. Regards, Jersey_Jim 14:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

i believe that someone who is against soka gakkai should not be allowed to present his whole point of view. this is because, the whole balance of the article will have already tilted towards his point of view which is already not balanced. i have seen a lot of contributions by readers here in this talk page, and i believe that a few people who are against soka gakkai had only seen the minute picture, and not the main picture. also, this is an encyclopedia. have u ever seen an encyclopedia critising the topic in question? look at the established printed britannica. regards, lesterlam84 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To Lesterlam84: Just out of curiosity: does your view that opposing points of view should not be allowed to be presented in full apply to Soka Gakkai only, on does it apply to all articles on controversial subjects? (This is a serious question.)

And for what it's worth: It's been some years since I read the printed EB article on Nichiren Buddhism (which I believed contained a sub-section on Soka Gakkai), but as I recall it was quite skewered and critical. It was also authored by a Catholic priest, if I recall correctly. I think one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it can overcome this sort of bias. And right here is where we're trying to figure out how to do that for this article. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Jim. Lesterlam84, welcome to the discussion. Since I've been around (about 3 or 4 months, I guess?) this article and the discussion has gone from one pole to the other. But a faithful few have been battling it out, and I think it is safe to say that there is representation from a number of different perspectives engaged here. So, this, believe it or not, is truly an article not written by any one "side," but rather has been evolving and changing almost daily, as people struggle to hear, respect, address, and sometimes accept, sometimes accept rejection of their various perspectives. At the moment, the article is very long, because people have been battling it out - but rather than just erasing each others work, we have been responding and adding. Now comes the hard part - editing down, revising, while including all relevant and important points, yet, somehow managing to keep it neutral.

That said, I am also a big fan of "authoritative sources" but I also recognize that even these have their limitations -- for one, the editorial board, contributers, etc., while well intentioned, learned, experts in their fields, reputable, etc.,etc., are still representing a small segment of society - hence, you will have articles that may end up being a little skewed, or a little dated by the time they are actually printed(why do you think they update them every year?). The cool thing about Wikiworld is that it is so dynamic, and so democratic -- the hard part is finding the consensus, not only on content, but on how best to discuss debate, and come to agreement about the content. How to dialog, really.

I think you will find there are a multitude of voices and perspectives provided here, and that is a really wonderful opportunity, no matter what school of Nichiren Buddhism, or other religion you practice. I hope you get a chance to check out some of the discussion -- its a lot to absorb, but I (for one), think it will give you a sense of how the article has been developing, what the points of contention are, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on any and all points. - Ruby--71.250.88.213 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the whole article must be reviewed and edited. I highly suggest that the article be sectionalized according to the topic. Let's create a new article for SG(japan) and a different one for SGI. Next is that we must shift through the whole lot of information for highly verfiable facts. However I have a question to ask about this: do we include in only facts that can be publicly verified or anything that is from official SGI propaganda train? I believe the links at the moment are adequate for knowing more about SGI as well as the critics.Regards to all-Gammadion 13:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

to jim: well, i agree that in wikipedia, the problem of biaseness is greatly countered. however, this is dependent on the responses of the public. the biasesness will still be around if either party do not speak out. take for example, if people from the SGI or people who supports the organisation do not bother to post anything here, this article will be tilted towards the against party. point to note too: there are a few instances whereby the correct information which do not offend the other party had been deleted by people whom i supposed to be super against the organisation. one day i see the new information there, the next, it is gone, back to the old one. therefore, this continual battle of ideas is not healthy. u have one source wanting to put his or her information, and the other out to present his or her point of view. a battle of ideas should not be done this way, it should be done on the table, where all parties involved can really discuss. (like this talking forum) i suggest, criticism articles be posted on another page. there will be a brief mention and a link. having a super long article do not serve readers. this article must provide an constructive viewpoint. it must include what is the organisation, what it does, and so on. if the criticism is to take over half the page, readers will find it difficult to digest. i seek to disagree that information from the SGI is labelled as propaganda. if this is the case, then information from all governments or official release by other organisations are also propaganda? information published has to be publicly verified. we may be hearing from one party, but what if the information is false? there has been many such cases in history. information that is widely reported by the media, turns out to be false. i agree with Gammadion that information regarding soka gakkai japan is separated from SGI. i think i read somewhere below that SGI activities are very different than that in japan. it has to be noted that SGI organisations in other countries are really actively involved in community and social work. many are highly respected in their countries. hope i had provided some constructive views. sorry if my sentences are incoherent as i am talking on the phone. best regards, lesterlam84 05:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but you raise a point I share -- those who so quickly and rightiously apply the term propaganda are apparently unaware that in holding this view, they are in fact promoting a stereotype. You've got to have enough openess to at least approach the stuff as it is presented, without sticking your label on it. If it is "propoganda" that will surely become aware to the reader. Trust them. - R--141.150.21.81 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Cult reference needs to go

The "cult" reference in this article needs to be removed. There have already been several discussions about this point. First point: It has already been established that the term carries a derogatory or perjorative connotation. In Wikki's own words: "In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons. ...In English-speaking countries since about the 1960s, especially in" North America, the term cult has taken on a pejorative and sometimes offensive connotation." etc. Second point: Citing a French reference is fine and good under most circumstances, but given all the conflicting views about the term, and the fact that this is an English encyclopedia, not a French one, and that we are discussing an international organization, not just a French one, it is not really helpful, especialy since (Third point) the use of the term is inconsistantly applied throughout Wikipedia. The French report includes several religions and organizations that are also English (American) organizations -- yet in the Wiki articles about them, they are not referred to as "cults," nor is the French report cited in relation to them.

For example, the following organizations and religions are included in the French report: Mormons, Jehovah's Witness (reference to the term in the title of a source cited here, but it is not stated in the text of the article as it has been in this one) Seventh-day Adventist Church ("cultic" as defined by the author of a cited book on the subject, and it has its own specific meaning - see article on Cults), the Church of God, Transcendental Meditation, the Humanist Party movement, the Church of Christ, Scientist, Pentacostals, and Raja Yoga.

If we are striving for NPOV, then the term ought to be applied equally and objectively to all entries that are also cited in this same report, OR, the report and reference outght NOT to be cited or used in this particular article, OR a different citation ought to be used in which the definition of the term is stated clearly, and/or make it clear that the French article is speaking of the SGI France specifically, (in which case, it would probably only be fair to also find similar reports about each and every SGI organization and see how each country views the organization in its country. And that would be ridiculous.

Otherwise, the only remaining reason for its inclusion in this article and not in others, is because some editors hold a POV about SGI, (as noted in Wiki's article on the subject). That is not appropriate, and NPOV. - Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ruby. I thought we'd lost you there!

I think the cult reference is touchy. And for the record: personally, I think it should be noted in articles on other religious groups when they have been plausibly accused of cult-like activities. Also, everyone might want to note that the French government's usage of "cult" is clearly and finely defined: a group has to meet certain objective criteria to be listed.

As for our article here, please remember that it is not saying that SGI is a cult, it's saying that SGI has been accused of being a cult. That the French government listed it as such is an undeniable fact, and it's something that people looking up SGI should know. I believe that the French government has rescinded this listing, which is something you might want to look into; but nonetheless, credible media in several countries and localities—in the US, particularly southern California—have also described SGI as a cult or being "cult-like" (e.g., Die Zeit, one of Germany's leading newspapers). Almost every website on cults (even when it's not run by some disgruntled SGI member) also has a section on Soka Gakkai or SGI, so denying or trying to avoid mention of the cult accusations is, I would think, likely to work against SGI: it looks like cover-up, and perfectly reasonable people are likely to interpret that as evidence that the cult characterizations are accurate.

Besides, if we remove all reference to the cult accusations, Carl7 will just come back and re-insert them again! Jersey_Jim 08:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No way! I am still here. Just trying to reclaim my nights for sleeping!! I haven't really seen anything warranting comment, either, so, I'm pretty well rested, lately! :-)

I hear you, though, and I also tend towards using a common standard for all articles. And, I agree that it is something that will keep coming back, realistically speaking. But, I feel it is necessary to put the feet to the fire - if it is going to be stated, it shouldn't go unchallenged. And if Carl7 wants to keep putting it in there, that's fine -- but let him find real authoritative sources to support his claim, and cite them. We are all about sharing all views - but we can't just allow a bully to run rampant. He's got to prove his case. As do we all, no? You gave a head start - but what are these sources you mentioned? Do they pass muster? If they are out there, then why not use, instead?

That said, I don't think the French article does meet the standard -- its better than some we have used in the past (by far!!!), but, still...we can and should do better.

For one thing, the definition the French site provides is not really all that air tight. All throughout that article, they themselves state how difficult it is to define these things. I tend to think that if a person or organization can't really define its own standard, then it loses on reliability. Secondly, if you look at some of the criteria, such as "isolationism" etc., then SGI does NOT meet its standard, and so, then, one has to ask, why is it listed? There need to be distinctions placed between Davidians and Waco, and Jehovah's, yoga, and SGI, don't you agree? Now, a source like that would be a real gem.

I'd be curious to have a more recent doc from them, as you mentioned. Is it available anywhere? I'll see if I can find anything in CountryWatch tomorrow (that's an online subscription service for international news that is available through most public library websites, if you have a public library card. A better place, however, would be a French legal service, the equivalent of say, the Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw - but I don't have access to those resources. They are mainly available through law libraries, or maybe university libraries...anyone in college or university out there? NYU, for example, has a foreign law database)

As for the "accused of being" distinction, that is a fair attempt at fair -- but the unfortunate thing is that there are such strong prejudices and fears tied to the term, that even just the mention of it gives more weight than it ought. Its like the political ploy of accusing someone of something, and staining the person, just by using the term next to their name -- even if the accusation proves false, no one stays around long enough to find out, and the damage is already done. So, you know, it just seems too weighted a term to even mention unless there is really strong evidence to support it, OR unless it is applied objectively everywhere else. I just don't think we've really seen that yet, esp. if the French may have even recinded their own statement - and if that is even a remote possibility, it is irresponsible to keep using that source. I think the case needs to be stronger if its going to be made at all.

With that, I bid you "bon nuit, mes amis! Á tout á l'heure!" - Ruby--71.250.88.213 06:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: That was interesting news about Nikken - how did you know so quickly? What does that mean for NS and SGI, I wonder? Sure to be BIG discussion there... ciao for now - R

Some day I'm gonna learn French; unfortunately, I've got enough on my plate for now. Anyhow, I'm glad you're still around.

I believe the referenced report was adopted by the French Senate in 1995 and that inclusion in the list of purported cults is based on the applicability of any one of ten criteria that the French ministry of the interior has defined. Admittedly the report casts a wide net, having named some 172 organizations as cults, but in SGI's case more than one criterion applied*. Nevertheless, it is a matter of public record that the French Senate adopted it. If you know French, maybe you could check to see what the French government (probably the ministry of the interior) has to say on the matter currently. And (again) many media outlets and opponents have similarly alleged that SGI is very cult-like. Many of the same points† are (were?) even among the bones of contention between SGI and the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood.

*

I believe these included the frequency of involvement in lawsuits, (tacitly) requiring unconditional loyalty to the leadership (as evinced by the master–disciple relationship to Pres. Ikeda), attempts to gain political influence, and encouragement to make monetary donations that disrupted personal finances. I know that in the US, SGI has reacted to such allegations by toning down everything but the master–disciple relationship (though I notice that they have switched to saying "mentor–disciple" and characterizing it differently than they used to).

†

Specifically, extreme aggrandizement of Pres. Ikeda, collection of donations in huge amounts and their characterization as kuyo (alms), tight organizational regimentation, characterization of political and cultural activities and promotion of publications as a facet of Buddhist practice, and overzealous propagation practices (i.e., overdone shakubuku that often resulted in people joining but then throwing away the Gohonzon).

In these circumstances, I think it's inevitable that others' allegations of cult-like behavior be mentioned: in the end, it's something anyone can learn of with a little effort (e.g., a Google search using "SGI" "cult" as key words). Again, though, I'm looking forward to what Enumclaw comes up with. I'm going to wait for that before directly editing the SGI article any further. Bon nuit yerself :), Jersey_Jim 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the idea of the "master" disciple relationship a Nichiren Shoshu institution?!? SGI dropped the whole terminology as soon as they were free of the priesthood. To me, this suggests that SGI was somewhat of a captive to the priesthood. There seems to be a lot more evidence that Nichiren Shoshu is the cult, not SGI. Does anyone know why Nichiren Shoshu isn't named as a cult? Perhaps it is because their is confusion of the two organizations...?

in many of the Nichiren Shoshu websites, Nichiren Shoshu says "The priests are considered our http://www.nichirenshoshumyoshinji.org/Introduction/Introduction.htm masters in faith], and we work with them to deeply absorb and earnestly propagate the teachings." and "Since the Direct Master Lineage (High Priest and Priesthood) holds the mind of the Buddha of the three existences, Nichiren Daishonin, and the successive High Priests act as the master. If one becomes a believer, one becomes a disciple of this master and must practice accordingly. In doing so the master and disciple become one in body and mind with the Original Buddha of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo. This is called attaining enlightenment in one's present form.(Yoshu, Vol.1, p. 61)." Frankly, of the two, Nichiren Shoshu sounds much more frightening. They don't even seem to be aware that the idea of a "master" is a distasteful (to say the least) concept. That's a bit far removed from reality, I'd say.

In the comment above it is also noted that there are many websites that suggest that SGI is a cult. But many of these sites are not reputable or authoritative. Is it wise to lend them a sense of credibility by including their commentary in WIkipedia? Especially since there are also a lot of references about the Temple's use of the internet as a means for discrediting the SGI and Ikeda. Or perhaps that fact should also be included alongside the cult references. - KPMP--151.198.99.71 23:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! As for the previous comments above, Jim, where did the following info come from? Is that part of the French doc? What sources do they cite?:

Specifically, extreme aggrandizement of Pres. Ikeda, collection of donations in huge amounts and their characterization as kuyo (alms), tight organizational regimentation, characterization of political and cultural activities and promotion of publications as a facet of Buddhist practice, and overzealous propagation practices (i.e., overdone shakubuku that often resulted in people joining but then throwing away the Gohonzon).

As for the French doc, once again, these other religions also met more than one of their criteria - so, same argument as before. But, I'll add this: if we are going to use that doc as a point of reference, then at some point one must make it plain -- exactly how many criteria does an organization have to meet to "qualify"? Its just not fair to keep using the broad stroke, consistently against one, and not against others, especially when you yourself recognize that "Admittedly the report casts a wide net,...". And by the way, why DOES Nichiren Shoshu manage to escape this, when it clerly also meets some if not more of these criteria?

I don't speak French, by the way - just a little here and there. Wish I could, though. Or any other language for that matter. Japanese would be really cool...At anyrate, I won't be much help there - but I will (haven't had a chance yet) check out the services I mentioned before and let you know. - Ruby--71.250.88.213 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

First, settle down a bit: you're reacting to the message by getting mad at the messenger (especially KPMP with the SHOUTING and screaming and such!!).

Please have a look at what I wrote above again and analyze it a bit: I'm informing you that the French government has spelled out 10 criteria for determining whether to designate an organization as a cult, and that (to my knowledge) they found that four applied. I then named those four for you. You wrote that you would try to track related information down, so I was intending to give you something to work with. I also let you know that the French Senate had adopted this document that names SGI several times. I'm addressing neither the veracity of the document itself nor the veracity of the allegations, only the fact that the document was adopted and that the French government made some sort of designation. Thus, once a Wikipedian has mentioned this, you can't just remove it. If you think such mention belongs in the Wiki articles on other organizations named in the document, no-one is stopping you from adding that information to those articles. Personally, I think the document's inclusion of organizations such as Church of Christ, Science kind of undermines the credibility of the document itself and hints that the criteria might be applied mechanically rather than analytically.

Next, while not proposing that the content of my second footnote (†) be included in this article (for the record, I don't think it should be), the coincidence of NS's bones of contention with the French criterion tends to substantiate the latter a bit. Ruby asks about the source, but I was writing from the top of my head: remember, I'm one of those who experienced the disputes between the priesthood and SG first-hand, in close proximity.

On the French document and SGI's designation as a cult: I was hoping Ruby could find out whether the designation and the document are coincidental, or whether one followed the other. As I wrote above, it looks like the criteria for designation were worked out by a ministry, and perhaps the designation itself was too. How many of the criteria need to be fulfilled for designation, I have also not been able to learn. It might be only one.

I don't know why Nichiren Shoshu was not designated, either. It could be because it didn't meet the criteria, or it could be because its presence in France is too small for it to even appear on their radar (so to speak). It also has the inherent strength (from the cult-watchers' perspective) of being a "traditional" religion with an official clergy ordained by a central authority.

As to KRMP's question about the master-disciple topic: Yes, Nichiren Shoshu—like most traditional Buddhist schools especially but also similar to even many Western churches—has a tradition of master–disciple relationships, but in substance it is not as you have tried to depict it with your citation from the Fuji Shugaku Yoshu (do you know what document you're quoting from?), nor is it anything sinister. I really would like to go into detail, but here is not the place. If anyone is really interested, I will do it on my user talk page instead.

Best regards, Jersey_Jim 12:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is very interesting that in all the articles (except in this instance) there is always this insistance on identifying SGI with Nichiren Shoshu. Only when SGI is associated with the word "cult" is there this attempt to dissociate the two. If SGI practioners are supposed to be practicing Nichiren Shoshu, as some editors have pointed out, then the presence of Nichiren Shoshu in France should be equal to the presence of SGI. Second question, even if that wasn't the case, since they do break down the "cults" by size in this report, it still doesn't make sense that Nichiren Shoshu doesn't appear. And since other more "traditional" churches with priests etc. ARE included, it seems like the authors' weren't necessarily swayed by the "traditional" aspect of it. It seems like it probably is some kind of confusion of the two organizations, similar to the confusion of SG and SGI, perhaps. I imagine the French government doesn't really make the temple/sgi distinction... Or else, maybe they *do* distinguish between them. But then again, it wouldn't make sense for them to identify SGI and not the NST -- unless there is a method to the madness...? Hmmm...there's a thought. Perhaps its not surprising that there is a similarity between the NST charactorization and this French docs? Gee, I wonder if there is any relationship between the doc and Nichiren Shoshu...? That would be rich! I'll see if I can get anywhere with that.

At any rate, I checked on KPMPs quotes, and looked at the websites. They are direct qupotes from Nichiren Shoshu sites, so it seems fair to say that these represent Nichiren Shoshu's principles and views on what "master" means. Here are the citations in full:

• Sermons by the Myoshinji Temple Priesthood on behalf of the 67th High Priest Nikken Shonin from the Nichiren Shoshu Seiganzan Myoshinji Temple website, Last Updated: December 18th, 2005, Copyright © 2001-05 Seiganzan Myoshinji Temple, Pinole, CA

• The Doctrines and Practice of Nichiren Shoshu Chapter 31: Faith in the Relationship between Master and Disciple

from Nichiren Shoshu Overseas Bureau, Copyright 2003-2004, Shizuoka, JAPAN.

Looks like the Yoshu quote was actually a quote OF a quote - I ran a "find" on it, and it comes up word for word in the "Doctrines and Practice" article cited above. It goes on to say that "Thus, Nichiin Shonin teaches the necessity of attaining Buddhahood in one's present form through the master-disciple relationship...The correct Law flows gradually through this transmission from the past to the present and future. This is why the foundation of practice in Nichiren Shoshu is through following and having faith in the present High Priest." The idea of having to have faith in a priest, of having to go through a priest to attain enlightenment is completey counter to what Nichiren said in so many of his writings....

I agree - the Nichiren Shoshu brand of master discipple is a little freaky, to me. On a side note, why do they all look so miserable?? I looked at the photo gallery, and everyone looked so... joyless! What's that about?

As for adding the references myself, no, I won't do that. First of all, I think the term is misplaced in the first place. Second, I don't think its my right -- I haven[t enough "inside experience" to label any religion or religious institution in this way. If it were up to me, I'd let the extremists keep the title, meaning those that practice mind control, isolationism, and tend towards violence etc. That is what the term has come to mean, anyway, and because of that, when it is applied "mechanically" it unfairly denigrates organizations and religions which might actually be helpful to people, and it starts turning into a kind of discrimination and religious intoerance.

Anyway, I STILL haven't had a chance to do any furhter research with Jim's clues. Work will let up soon, so I'll definately get to it and get back to you. - R--71.250.88.213 05:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, this is devolving into a discussion about theology and terminology, about what people say *about* SGI rather than what SGI really *is*.

The whole "cult" thing is overdone. IMO, that would be something to go onto the "criticisms of SGI" page, but not on the main SGI page. Same thing with discussions about master (or mentor) and disciple, what the whole "transmission of the heritage or the Law" bit was about, you name it.

As I've said before, I'm an SGI member, but I have to laugh at myself and my own organization when we get deeply into these discussions. What's more important, whether NS or SGI have the essence of mentor/disciple correct, or if we're mainly spreading the Buddhist philosophies that we believe can help lead people to their salvation?

Yes, yes, it's important to be theologically correct. Yes, I believe the NS priesthood is on the wrong path. Regardless, I don't think that stuff MATTERS when it comes to a Wikipedia article about SGI. I know I sit here and say this stuff without (thus far) putting up anything to back myself up, but I'll repeat: The article should say what SGI is, where it is, and a short bit about its history. There should be a brief explanation/deliniation between SG-Japan and SG-International, and explain the member organizations. There should be a link to a page that's specifically for criticisms of SG/SGI, but those criticisms don't belong on the main SGI page. The word "cult" shouldn't be on the main page, IMO.

I think it's unfair and unimportant and missing the target as to Wikipedia's mission for an SGI page to be used as a method to take swipes at the NS priesthood. I think it's equally unfair and unimportant, missing the target, etc for the SGI page to be used by critics of SGI to take swipes at SGI. I don't even think the SGI page (or the talk page) is, or should be, a forum for reasonable discussion (which, BTW, we have seen here- people being very reasonable and kind with each other) for theological issues, discussions about the particulars of translating Japanese into English, etc.

If we can stick to this stuff about an outline of page structure, if we can at least agree on what kinds of things to put on which pages, then we can better move forward in organizing and arranging the pages. --Enumclaw 00:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had been busy during this month to post anything. I believe the French government has the legal right to recognise SGI (or Nichiren Shoshu for that matter) as a cult. If anyone wants the article to be NPOV, then verifiable articles must be used. I wonder can we get anyone who can translate the French article about SGI being a cult into English? It can then be used as a link to the main article. If the word cult is ever to be used on the main article, then I suggest that it should be put as an official statement by whatever country that's saying it.

In my humble opinion as I had stated in earlier postings, we should seperate SG and SGI as individual articles as they have different historical timelines. SGI's timeline should start with Daisaku Ikeda wherelse SG timeline should start with Makiguchi. In any case, the New Komeito connection should ever be brought up, it should be linked only to SG. (Komeito Party had religious connections with SG and thus was dissolved and reformed into the New Komeito to be viable political entity in the seperation of Church and State laws)

Next is that whether Wikipedia should published an organisation's official stance on certain subjects whether it is POV or not. For example, the enimity between SGI and NS and the SGI's official view on it. This may allow further understanding of the organization of SGI/SG and its believes.

Just for information's sake, can anyone tell me more about this motto "Hakkecho Ichu". My Japanese is a bit rusty and I saw this down at a SGI YMD gathering in my country recently. From what I can remember, it may mean something like eight corners of the world under one roof. Correct me if I am wrong, isn't that motto connected to the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII?Thanks if anyone can provide me with further information.(Just drop me a post to my talk.)-

Gammadion 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys - I'm going to try to be quick about this...

MY REPLIES: First, I agree that the cult reference really out to go, or be moved elsewhere, for the reaons already cited. I understad that the French have their document and their rights, but that is being challenged on grounds of religious intolerance, even in France! AND its got the whole US-France feud involved, too ( BTW, the article is available in English online at http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html and here http://www.cesnur.org/2001/fr_law_en.htm - and here is a good site that is trying to address the issue: Centers for Studies on New Religions and here's a BBC on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/802070.stm ) but, beyond that, and for reasons already discussed, I think the French view is just not relevant to this English database. Put it in the French one about SGI-France, perhaps (do we need seperate pages for each country, now ?!?). I also understand the frustration with the constant regression (or evolution?) into discussions about points of theology - but I wonder - how can we write what SGI *is* if we don't have these discussions? I know they are tedious, but I still think they help to understnad what these organizations really are about. I think it would help if we could see the discussions as just that -- I don't think anyone here is really trying to take a swipe at the other, I think we are all sincerely trying to come to mutual agreement and understanding, and I still think that is a good thing - even if it might be diffiuclt, boring, or provocative. As long as we keep cool heads, and remember we are all just trying to understand, we can *do* this.

As for the point about where to begin and end - that was a really good one. I hadn't thought about it like that before. But IMO, I don't think we can or should begin SGI with Ikeda, since the two are completely linked. But you raise a very good point - how do we handle this? I have no answer, myself. But I think it would be innacurate to simply cut out the history of how SGI came into being -- Makiguchi and Toda are absolutely the background of SG and SGI, I don't see how they can be left out. And, besides, if SGI claims them, who are we to cut them out? On the other hand, they are all actually minor characters in the long history of Nichiren Shoshu -- except for the fact that in the last 40 years, SG/SGI played a part in the development of NSA and the pread of the teaching, for their part. But, really, relatively speaking, Makiguchi, Toda, nad Ikeda have a very small part in the overall history of Nichiren Shoshu. SGI aughtn't - and doesn't seek to try to claim NS history - the lineage, all that, are left up to NS; so why would NS need to be played out in the SGI page, and why would NS need to or want to claim Makiguchi and Toda for themselves, except peripherally? But, I know, that is a sticky one, and I have no real answers other than my opinions above....

I also do think Wikipedia has every right to put in the organization's positions, as long as they are presented as such (quoted, cited, etc.) As for the New Komeito, I think that's appropriate to mention them in affiliation with SGs article, with more on the history of their relationship. But as SGI does NOT have a purely political agenda or party affiliation aspect (at least as far as I can tell) and in fact, seems to shy away from anything like it, clearly stating its positions of division of church and state, and acting on that belief, then I think it is fair to mention the problems of the sister org, in the SGI article, but note the fact that SGI has taken a different stance. And as for the Temple-SGI positions etc., I for one, don't really see the necessity of that at all. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say they could each((SG, SGI, NS) just leave the whole thing out and it wouldn't hurt any of the articles, really. I think its just none of those things - once the ball is served, you gotta hit it back. But, hey, just keep the ball on your side of the court, and no one gets hurt. We can walk of the court side by side, or back away from each other, or whatever. You know? And I think you got it right, Jim, when you said isn't the most important thing that the philosphy gets spread. I think it is, too. All this other stuff just gets in the way.

MY OUTLINE SUGGESTIONS : But, all that said, I think I heard what you are *really* asking, and that is simply for my ideas of what the outline should include. So here goes: 3 articels SG, SGI, NS. I'll outline SGI, and leave SG and NS to others with more knoweldge about them. I did,however, make some notes about what I think might be better suited on the other two pages, and where I think the lines could be drawn within the SGI page. So:

SG --if included at all; maybe we should leave it to the Japan page?? Just link users to that page from the SGI page??

SGI -- 1. Intro the organization - brief on beliefs, goals, accomplishments, etc. (maybe the charter stuff, definitions or enlightenment stuff, etc,...); 2. Structure - brief bit on SG/SGI, little bit about Ikeda being head of it (leave the details for his article) little bit about major SGI orgs (maybe it would be helpful to do a sentence or two on the major players and/or more interesting developments, like SGI-USA with its diversity, the Soka University, and Florida Nature and Culture Center, etc., and SGI-France (if you did that, then that might be the place to enter in the French doc, if it is really something people think should be in there - though again, context is still important), or like SGI in Africa, where SGI has made a lot of statements about the future of Africa, etc., and/or SGI-Brazil and its work with the rainforest, etc. - Maybe that is too much, but I think it would be interesting and would give people a better understandnig of the true international nature of SGI, and help to break some of our mental chains to SG and SGI-USA which I think we all have, to varying degrees); 3. Then, some history - beginning from Shak up until today, sans the infighting, and with links to Nichiren Buddhism for more detail, noting only how and where differences lie, (maybe there could be an appropriate point for a very brief bit about the Nichiren Shoshu relationship - heavy on the relationship and mutual support, and on points of doctrinal difference (this could be a point where the distinctions between them could be highlighted -- the whole SGI emphasis on Nichiren's "do not look outside yourself," self-empowerment, etc., vs. NS' emphasis on lineage and tradition, and the importance they place on Nichrien's "protecting the true teaching," etc. (someone else might say that better) - with less on the ugly split; Then, a section on The Practice - Faith, Practice, Study (brief on some of the trappings); List and/or briefly describe major documents, with links. Criticism - Brief statment, with link to the other page (if you really think it is necessary to have one. I am not so sure that it is...but...I concede on that point, if you really think it is necessary) I think that does it...for me, at least. - Sorry this is so run on, but I can't stay on tonight. Break it up if you want...Peace and good night all, and Happy New Year, if we don't meet here again before then! -- Ruby --71.250.88.213 06:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

anyone ever heard of the aspect of buddhism that says: "slander stops with me."  ?

Rude awakening: where to go from here

Forgive me for being rude... but pretty much everything surrounding this article, this discussion page, and so forth has gotten almost completely out of control. It's insane, folks. You're using the discussion page not for discussion about the content and editing of the article in question, but to chit-chat, discuss, and argue about narrow points of doctrine regarding Nichiren Buddhism.

I mean, I'm an SGI member, I've done Soka Spirit stuff, and even *my* eyes glazed over wading through all that. Yikes! And the main article is getting so big and so wordy that it's losing all meaning.

So don't take this as a threat; take it as a promise. When I get time, I'm going to dump vast portions of the article and re-do it, almost from the ground up. You can prepare for this by editing and CUTTING all the useless material, not adding in lots of stuff to make it so the article encompasses every single little viewpoint that you want while also being all nice and cute without offending anyone.

I urge again that the article be made to do only a few things- describe what SGI is, where it is, its basic philosophy (NOT someone's discussion of its philosophy, not points of theological doctrine, none of that stuff- you wanna do that, don't do it on what's supposed to be a factually-based encyclopedia). A simple link to a page with controversies over SGI, perhaps, but that's it. I don't want to read arguments of whether the excommunication was good, bad, or indifferent; neither do I want to read arguments of whether President Ikeda is a brilliant dude or if he's just a scam artist.

I'm also thinking it's time to clean house on this discussion page and start it over; only this time I urge people to identify themselves and their axes they're grinding. For example...

Paul- SGI member for 1 year- Seattle, WA --Enumclaw 09:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Paul, I'll buy into your suggestion here. I agree that the whole article needs to be restructured, something I've already mentioned several times. I wanted to start from the top—i.e., from the introduction—and do it gradually, but this is probably futile: I offered the above as something to cover lots of ground, but to be pared down; instead, it got longer and more detailed! I was hoping it would come out to no more than three paragraphs of 150-200 words each.

I've written already what I think the article should contain, and I thought you pretty much confirmed that with one of your own comments. (Under "Who needs a love poem?" above.) Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further, the article currently confuses SG and SGI too much. Mixing the two as much as it does—for example, saying that "SGI has been guided by Daisaku Ikeda since the death of Second President Josei Toda in 1958"—makes for some strange reading, especially when the next sentence clarifies that Ikeda "became president of the larger Soka Gakkai International upon its creation in 1975"! In addition to things like this, the temporal sequence of the presentation is also a bit dodgy.

I am willing to collaborate with you (and others) on this as long as you agree to keep the article factual and balanced. The only "axe to grind" I have is against obfuscation and the rewriting of history—not something I'm accusing you of, or expecting you to do consciously, but if you draw largely on SGI sources, some skewering of the past is inevitable. It's not that SGI lies, it's that SGI doesn't tell the whole truth, or how SGI frames the truth. I would also appreciate it if people would stop picking nits with every factoid they don't like—we can't just pepper the article with separate citations for every little thing when we've already supplied sources and references at the end of the article that are supposed to cover that ground.

For my part, when you write about what SGI is and what it aspires to be, I won't touch those parts because, to be frank, I don't know enough about them anymore. I will be happy as long as the tone is neutral and information is presented so readers will know that SGI and the situation around it are being described, not opined about, wishfully thought upon, actively defended, or gratuiously criticized. I hope that others will likewise be respectful when I or others write about criticisms of SGI. I will keep my contributions cool and dry and cite sources—though not every other phrase. Further, I hope others will resist the urge to engage in circuitous strings of aggressive points and counterpoints or a revert war seeking to stay one step ahead of material—whether favorable or critical—that they don't like.

If we can stick to ground rules like these, the article has a chance of being quite informative. (And I'll bet the history section will turn out to be the hardest to tackle. <g>)

So now the big question: when do you think you would have time to do your promised full rewrite? I'd like to see you do your stuff. I'm coming off a busy work period and expect my workload to be low for the next month or so. I'm willing to dedicate a few hours a week to this article, but I'd rather not do anything that's just going to get zapped. (There are some other articles I'd like to work on too.)

You wrote that "[t]he problem here is that anyone who cares enough to bother writing the article probably IS emotionally involved." True. So let's see what we can do to overcome that emotional involvement and make the article one that will be of use to readers. In other words, take off our SGI or NS or whatever caps and put on our Wikipedian ones instead while we're here.

Meanwhile, I'm getting ready to archive this talk page—it's far too big. If anyone has any ideas for how they'd like to see it done, or any objections, speak up. I'll go to it sometime after 0:00 GMT Thursday 12/8 unless somebody says to wait longer.

Finally: Paul, you suggested people here be above the board and identify themselves. The best way to do that is to register as a Wikipedian and create a user page. If you want to find out who I am, you can go to my mine—and probably the info you seek—has been there all along. All you have to do is double-click on Jersey_Jim 15:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. Just let's get it right this time, and please, I agree - let's leave the opinions out. But remember, once one seeps in, it's got to be responded to -- otherwise, it will end up being deleted entirely, or entirely rewritten from someone elses's perspective, neither of which is effective in the end.

On the other hand, whether we like to admit it or not, it seems that the long winded back and forth served the purpose of airing out all POVs, and,if nothing else, has provied a good basis for editing. After all, you can't edit what hasn't been written.

As for parenthetical citations (as opposed to footnotes), I see no problem with that. Its a standard in any type of review, survey, research report or paper. It serves the purposes of identifying specific points and linking them directly to their sources. In some cases, ther are points (that might otherwise be regarded as simply opinion) which are actually well worth presenting. This is completely acceptable, provided the author is able to present and cite them appropriately. All these followed up with a bibliography at the end, with complete citation information for those who would like to read the orignial sources is also standard (See MLA or APA Style Manuals for examples). That said, they may not always be necessary at all times; but for specific points of fact, or for comments rephrased or quoted from an author's work, they are necessary, if only to avoid the accusation of plagiarism. Have fun! - Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PS to Paul: Perhaps what you have seen here is an example of dialog in action, and how dialog can lead to greater understanding, and, ultimately, to consensus. I wouldn't be so concerned about it. Afterall, as I indicated above, it is out of all of this dialog that we will end up with exactly what you 9and everyone elses) seeks. If you want a one time fixed article, check out Brittanica - trust me, they do all of this same back and forth, "nit-picking" as you call it, (I call it dialog) behind the scenes. What is presented to you is the final result. Which is why you will still find inaccuracies, discrepencies, misunderstandings, and biasses in them from time to time. A limited host of voices, leads to a limited perspective on the topic at hand. But this, Wikipedia, is a cmpletely different animal - a living, breathing, growing, intellectual being - an "encyclopedia" - but much different from what we typically consider that to be. In this particular case, this particular article, (and there are others out there like it, for sure) I don't think you could avoid it. In fact, I think, overall, the dialog (minus the little put downs, subtle attacks, and even outright verbal abuse) has been pretty healthy. And I'd prefer too much back and forth civil discourse to too little pseudo-intellectual domination and verbal violence anyday.

And in case you don't know what I mean, I am talking about the use of such phrases:

So don't take this as a threat; take it as a promise. When I get time, I'm going to dump vast portions of the article and re-do it, almost from the ground up. You can prepare for this by editing and CUTTING all the useless material, not adding in lots of stuff to make it so the article encompasses every single little viewpoint that you want while also being all nice and cute without offending anyone.

I mean, who are you to make such a statement? This is a collaborative effort - anyone is free to edit. No one is an authority.

In addition, please remember, the article is not just there to serve your interests -and "what you want to read" etc. There may be many other people who would benefit from some stuff that you aren't interested in. Just say no! Don't read it. Now, that doesn't mean it couldn't use editing; but to simply use your own desires and expectations as the yardstick for what is acceptable and not is really not -- acceptable.

In addition, I am afraid you may be confusing civil discourse with "being all nice and cute" and respecting others views with not "offending anyone." Check your hat at the door, like Jim says. And leave your baggage there, too. - R (Human Being concerned about the state of our world, first; about the state of the public's intellectual development, second; Librarian and Infrmation Specialist a close third, 5 years practicing fourth -- and no "axes to grind" except for a disrespect for emotionalism and bias in what is supposed to be an "encyclopedic" source, an intolerance for poor research, poor sourcing and citations, and poor research and media literacy skills in general. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy! Welcome, and keep chanting!) Peace - Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

hi. regarding information, i will gladly volunteer my services. anyway, information is always skrewd whether what source it comes from. so though SGI may not say everything, NS also may not say everything. so whatever we post here, it must be objective, and not just out to rebutt the other side of the information. best regards, lesterlam84

Hi Lesterlam84. I sure agree with your sentiments and would like to pursue the aritcle according to them. Let's see how it goes... :) Meanwhile, I'm excited to see what kind of magic Enumclaw can work with the promised rewrite. Best regards for a nice weekend all around, from clear, sunny, and cold Tokyo. Jersey_Jim 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys, I agree. Nothing will satisfy the extremes - the goal is too find a good middle ground, with acknowledgement given to extremes at either end, and all presented in an objective manner. Hope to be of help. Looking forward to revisions. - R--71.250.88.213 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still here, and feeling guilty about the re-write as I've been up to other stuff. I'm horribly bad when it comes to setting priorities and procrastinating; right now, for example, I should be putting together these stupid bookshelves I got from IKEA, but this seems more interesting.  :)

My thinking is heading in this direction. I've already stated what I think the main SGI article should be about; a description of what SGI is, where it is, who makes it up, the basic history, and a very basic description of their beliefs.

I also think we should have several more pages. We need a separate page for Soka Gakkai itself, and in both articles there should be a description of how SG grew and morphed and changed into SGI, and the basics of what the relationship between the two is.

It seems that it'd also be fair to have a page for "SGI controversies" (and, for that matter, probably a page for SG-Japan controversies as well). These pages, IMO, should be written in a fair manner, with each particular controversy and then the SG/SGI side and the "opponent" side taking a turn at explaining each group's position on the particular controversy. (They could alternate who gets to "go first" on each particular point.) Perhaps a short rebuttal by each side would also be appropriate to answer main things in the initial discussion.

This kind of a setup would, I think, give each "side" a chance to offer up their interpretation of a particular controversy. It would keep these controversies (many of which, after all, are merely arguments about religious doctrine) off of the main pages that describe what SG and/or SGI actually are, and what they are not.

The problem with this setup is obvious; the way Wikipedia is set up, there's nothing to stop endless, ongoing, repetitive discussions on arcane and minutely detailed points of what Nikken Abe or Daisaku Ikeda said on the 18th of March in 1992, blah blah blah. (I have no idea if anything worth noting was said on those days- this is just an example.) Still, I think that this sort of structure- if adhered to by anyone with an axe to grind- would give a lot of help to the overall flow of the articles.

The advantage to this setup is that hopefully, by moving the arguments to their own page, is that hopefully we can keep the main part of Wikipedia free of the seemingly endless back-and-forth crap that goes on between the radical/orthodox people in BOTH groups. I'm an SGI member, and I've taken part in Soka Spirit activities, but I can tell you that after a certain point (which comes relatively early for me) I just say "well, look, that's what I think and that's what you think and it'd be a waste of our time to sit here and keep bitching at each other about it.)

Personally, I would really like to see Wikipedia manage to stay above that. I'm confident and happy with my membership and my faith, and I figure it can withstand attacks levied against it from the outside. If I didn't have that kind of belief, well, what good would that faith be? Likewise, I believe that other people can and should and probably DO feel the same about theirs, and at some point everyone's got to just look at what there is to look at and make a decision.

Soooo... that's my proposal. I'd rework the SGI article and make it as factually-based as possible; same thing with the SG article; and then the SG/SGI controversies page can develop over time.

Whaddya think? --Enumclaw 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think 98.8% agreement on all points, and I'm ready to jettison the other 1.2% at any time! I especially like the idea of branched-off articles (separate articles that are only linked to from this one, with their subject matter getting only passing reference) for complicated topics.

On the disorganization and procrastination: you're not alone! In the meantime, I'm looking forward to your contribution. Could you put a notice on the main page (I think the template is {{reorganizing}}) while you're working on it, so others don't edit the page at the same time? Jersey_Jim 23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits of December 16, 2005

I went today just to fix some gratuitously removed links and wound up spending more time on the article than intended (albeit less than is needed). I reworked the whole introduction in a manner I hope will meet with everyone's approval. Please note that the intro isn't supposed to include a lot of detail—which I did leave in the body text.

In the body text, I tried to limit myself to spelling changes and mechanical adjustments, but in some places I couldn't resist rewording things in a manner that I hope makes the content a bit clearer. I avoided making changes that would change meaning, though I may not have been completely successful in that department. I also attempted to give the in-line source citations consistency, but I'm not sure whether they conform to one of the recommended Wikipedia conventions; likewise with the list of sources at the end of the article.

The article's midsection—on criticisms—is very dense and repetitive, so I didn't try to do too much with it today. Much of the material is rebutting rather than describing the criticisms. If the rebuttals are to remain, the must be reformulated and presented elsewhere in the article where they will not look like defenses. Maybe this is something for Enumclaw to deal with when s/he does the promised major rewrite.

I've added some sources as well. They are intended to document some of the material describing criticisms and the like; I hope no one will just pop in are remove them.

In any case, I tried to edit in the spirit of the discussions we've have here over the past few weeks. Best regards to all, Jersey_Jim 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

December 21, 2005

Hello, I am new here to this page and to Wiki in general but hopefully my observations will still be considered. As a little back ground I am not a SGI member but my wife is. I have been to the meetings before but just as an observer so I could understand my wife's beliefs better. At no time have I been recruited by SGI and I have never received pressure to join even though my wife is a member. Here is just a quick observation gathered from my first reading.

In the criticism section it refers to the Japanese word sensei as "master". This implies that he is considered the master of the people when if fact it is a reference to Teacher. Sensei can refer to someone as master in the context of a Doctor would (hopefully) be a master of medicine or a professional artist as a master of his or her form of art. Taken from an American point of view "master" can have a lot of negative meaning due to our own historical mistakes and I think that it should be removed and replaced with teacher.

If anyone would like to have a Japanese observation of this article I can have my wife (A SGI member) and her parents (very anti SGI) take a look at it. Thanks Knowbase 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Knowbase, welcome to the discussion, and thanks for dropping by to share your observations.

Actually, I think your input, without that of your wife and in-laws, could be quite useful. All of us involved in the discussion at this point are, so to speak, interested parties; so the opinions and observations of a disinterested party like you ought to be quite valuable. My thoughts on the use of sensei in SGI are here if you're interested. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 00:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Knowbase, welcome! I say the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. So far, it seems like there are only about 5 or 6 regular voices in this article/discussion, mostly anti-SGI, and/or skeptics, and a couple of fairly neutral voices; I believe we are all American, though I am not certain of that, and the majority are living in the states, with at least one living in Japan. So, I for one, would love to hear from you and anyone else interested in participating.

I (relatively new SGI member, U.S., 5 years) agree with your description of the meaning of master or mentor. Teacher and mentor seem much closer to the English translation of what I understand Jim to be saying about the Japanese meaning, and it is also definately reflective of my experience. I, for one, don't "idolize," "adore," or "follow" Ikeda, nor have I ever been made to feel that I should, or "must" do so. I do have a tremendous respect for him, though -- he is one of the few voices that I know of, who has stood for peace and worked for peace, and accomplished so much for peace, for such a long time, and in such a consistent and practical way. He is insightful, wise, and quite practical, and I appreciate the other voices he always brings to the table - great philosphers, as well as the regular voices of not so famous ones. It is really strange to me how some people percieve him as anything more or less than that...

My current question is, as others have expressed above -- exactly who IS the proponent of the whole "master" ideation anyway? When I read some of the NST stuff, it soundes like the priesthood are really the ones who are demanding absolute and unquestioning obeisance -- they are quite plain in stating this position -- yet, the temple members don't seem to see this - which is fine, really - to each his own....but I am trying to understand why...I would relish the opportunity to find out, but I haven't yet really heard anyone, aside from Jim, who could just share their experience, without also lashing out, or with it getting all convoluted with doctrinal arguments, and such...

Lately, I am wondering, are the temple folk, so accustomed to this kind of heirarchical relationship, simply misinterpreting Ikeda and SGI? They seem to think there is a competition between the two leaders -- which would make sense if one was accustomed to thinking that there had to BE such A leader - A "High Priest." Ikeda seems to be developing a somewhat different kind of "master or mentor disciple relationship," a much more egalitarian one. But I suppose if you used to believing in only one kind of relaitonship, a heirarchical one, as acceptable -- the direct lineage, etc., etc,. the "supreme teacher" etc., etc., then it makes sense that they would have a difficult time appreciating this approach.

At any rate, I would be interested to hear from other people, SGI, supporters of, SG in Japan, as well as some of the anti-SG perspective there. If you can help bring any and/or all of these voices to the forum, I think it could only be a good thing. If you have time, I'd suggest you go through and review some of the former points of discussion (many of them were archived in one of these articles). I've been invited to take the discussion out of the open forum that this section provides, but frankly, I think an open forum is where it belongs...anyway, just my two cents (ok, well maybe it was four!) In short, Welcome! - Ruby--68.45.57.193 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

January 2006

Pretty good edits, thanks for the work. Sorry to see the whole excommunication bit again, but at least it was failry neutral in its presentation. I haven't checked to see if you made the other pages yet, but I will. I saw the List of Cults page, and it seems like a fair trade. I think it could use some more explanation as to what each of those categories means, though. Must have been a lot of work! Thanks again for your efforts - Ruby--71.250.88.213 11:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted part of someone's recent addition. The text of their submission/revision was a web link (URL) with the following explanatory text:

(URL HERE) Copies of Gohonzons inscribed by Nichiren himself may be downloaded from the files section of (ANOTHER URL). Additional Nichiren-inscribed Gohonzons will be uploaded, as they are digitized and cleaned-up, on an on-going basis until all 128 extant Nichiren Gohonzons have been uploaded. High resolution copies are available for delivery by mail. The philosophy of this group is to free the Gohonzon from the control of the sects, some of which use bestowal of a Gohonzon as a means of exerting control over their membership. IF you object to the free distribution of copies of Gohonzons inscribed by Nichiren himself, then do not visit this group. However, if you wish to practice independently and want to get a Gohonzon without submitting to the control of a sect or organzation, this is your answer.

Okay, talk about your deliberately non-neutral POV. It's one thing to provide a web link; that's pretty fair. It's pretty unfair to blatantly advertise how swell the organization, page, opinion, or whatever that the web link is pointing to. It's even more heinous to promptly slag on the SGI itself by suggesting that people have "submitted to the control of a sect or organization".

By using what *seems* to be non-inflammatory language, this person (user 72.226.20.8) gives a sham appearance of being "fair". However, implicit in the notion is very non-neutral language against SGI. It doesn't belong in the Wiki article; it belongs on the so-called "middle of the road" web pages. When I get a chance to really read those pages, if they're not actually "middle of the road" in their viewpoint towards SGI (and let's face it, the attitude expressed by the writer certainly makes that look unlikely) then we'll have to move the web link that is left up to the "critics" section.

Once again, I urge that the SGI page in Wiki shouldn't be an advertisement for SGI; that's what people can go to the SGI web sites for. It shouldn't be an advertisement or opportunity for the critics to slag on SGI; that's what THEIR web pages are for. Provide the FACTS, not the opinion; proivde the web links; allow people to read the biased stuff on the biased sites (hey, sure, I'm an SGI member but I can admit that SGI's web site has pro-SGI bias) and give them links.

That's it, that's what belongs. I believe that we've moved a bit closer to redoing this article, with some new pages added; it doesn't seem that anyone who's been a regular for a while back in these discussions (which I do not count myself to be) has raised any major problems with the proposal. --Enumclaw 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the same passage from Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Buddhism as well. I agree with you on many points, especially the swipe at SGI suggesting that SGIers have "submitted to control," and the point that these pages ought not be used as advertisements space. But I have to say, I am a little confused by some of your comments, Enumclaw. Sometimes it sounds like you lump SGIers together in the same category as this guy, and you have not a little contempt for them. Why do you do that? There are always individuals who act inappropriately, as there have been here. But they are not "SGI" as a whole, and it seems that their behavior colors your view of the whole. That's not fair. It would be helpful to separate the individuals from the SGI label. And then chant for those individuals -- and for yourself.

Secondly, I think we are in error when we misconstrue having a belief system and sharing it with confidence, with "bias." Bias means to have "A preference or an inclination especially one that inhibits impartial judgment," "An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice." or "To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice." (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company). Or "a personal and often unreasoned judgment for or against one side in a dispute : PREJUDICE" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc). I don't believe that these fit what the SGI sites are trying to put forth, or what SGI is about in general, nor does it fit many, if not most, people who belong to SGI.

I understand your desire to maintain a neutral position - but aren't you sacrificing yourself and SGI in the attempt? Just a little? I am not suggesting that we ought never criticize - just that webe fair in doing so. Having a position or belief, presenting that position or belief is not necessarily holding a bias as defined above, and I for one, think it is a little unfair to suggest that that is so in this case.

At any rate, my comment regarding this same passage on the downloadable Gohonzons was as follows:

"==Deleted Promotional Material==

I deleted this section, as it is a blatant promotional piece. It has no place in this article. However, should it be rephrased, it would be of interest as part of the general set of descriptions of various forms of Nichiren Buddhism."'

Peace - Ruby----71.250.88.213 05:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, we should create a link for them as their thoughts are worth considering. Sometime, people will more or less realise that there's still a cold war between SGI and Nichiren Shoshu and will probably look for a sanctuary somewhere. Just my two cents of thought.-Gammadion 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your point - its really so unfortunate that this is going on. But at the same time, I'm not sure that the solution is withdrawal from the fray. Unlike the real cold war, where the ultimate outcome was truly destructive, this is a war of ideas where dialog is the weapon of choice. Uncomfortable and difficult as it may be, don't you think this might be resolved without simply opting out of the "system?" Its kind of like choosing not to vote because one is not pleased with either candidate. Ultimately, that is self defeating, since one will win either way - perhaps it is better to take your vote and then use it to move the party from within...? - Ruby--68.45.57.193 06:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How y'all doing?

These people aren't withdrawing from the fray. They're saying they want to be associated with neither the pot nor the kettle black—a perspective I can identify with, though I don't think it's correct. Nonetheless, if people want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that's up to them.

That aside, the promotional material doesn't belong here, though links to the websites and discussion boards are probably best left in with a note that there is another point of view. The idea of NPOV on Wikipedia is not that no points of view should be represented, it's that all possible ones should be described without bias for any—which means qualifications like "sites making unfounded criticisms" are also inappropriate. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 09:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim captured what I saw as the main problem with the material I removed. It's not because the material had a point of view; that's fine, they're entitled to it. What irritated me was that they tried to masquerade as "NPOV" while flat-out slagging on SGI, in what's supposed to be a NPOV article about SGI.

In my opinion, the proper place for those folks would be through a link at the bottom of the article about Nichiren Buddhism, since they are practicing a form of Nichiren's Buddhism, not a SGI-endorsed Buddhist practice. It seems to me that a fair, NPOV arrangement for the entire thing would be something along the lines of this (in outline form):

1) RELIGION

   A) Buddhism
      1) Therevada Buddhism
      2) Mahanyana Buddhism
         a) Nichiren Buddhism
            1) Nichiren Shoshu
            2) Nichiren Shu
            3) SGI
            4) Other schools (Honmon Butsuryu Shu, Kempon Hokke Shu, Hokkeshu, etc)
            5) Independent or less-formally-organized practitioners

You see, it seems to me that if we step back and quit focussing on the individual trees, the forest that appears in our field of view is the overall Nichiren Buddhism family. And beyond that, the family of all Buddhism. In my idealistic world, then, each article for a given organization/group would stick to "just the facts, ma'am" and given an overview of that organization/group's practice, history, and basics of their belief.

As soon as you start getting into trying to define the actual bits of theology that differentiate between, say, the Nichiren Shu folks and the SGI folks, well, that's when you start getting into the realm of NPOV problems, as exhibited in the text of the stuff that I deleted.

From the Nichiren Shu member's POV, for an SGI member to view Nichiren as a Buddha is outrageously wrong; it's hard for that POV to *not* come through in an article about SGI if they (the Nichrien Shu member) are writing or editing it. In fact, to them, they can't understand why any "fair" discussion of SGI doesn't include that. Likewise, for the SGI member looking at/editing/writing an article on Nichiren Shu, they can't understand how on earth it doesn't slag on the Shu for, say, selling copies of gohonzon in stores or whatever.

This, then, is the challenge for us Wikipedians; keeping the articles with enough information to be useful and differentiate between the various Nichiren schools, and giving a fair discussion and explanation of the links betwen them and the differences and history between them (particularly, in this instance, the issues between the Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI)... but not letting the articles slide into slagging on one or another organization/group in a slanted POV manner.

How do we do it? Beats me.  :) No, seriously, we're in the process right now. Take a moment and pat yourself on the back for trying to do it in a fair manner.

Cheers, Paul --Enumclaw 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

February–March 2006

Well, Paul, you've captured it pretty well. I would make the following changes to your map (and these are minor quibbles), but otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

1) RELIGION
   A) Buddhism
      1) Therevada Buddhism
      2) Mahanyana Buddhism
         a) Nichiren Buddhism
            1) Minobu/Kuon-ji (Mimbe Niko) line
               A) Nichiren Shu
                  1 Schools with roots in Nichiren Shu
               C) Other schools now affiliated with Nichiren Shu
                  but previously independent (Ikegami line, etc.)
               B) Other, spinter groups
            2) Fuji/Komon (Byakuren Nikko) line
               A) Nichiren Shoshu
                  1 Myoshinko/Kenshokai
                  2 Shoshinkai
                  3 Soka Gakkai/SGI
                  4 Other, splinter groups
               B) Kitayama Honmon-ji line
               C) Kyoto Yobo-ji
               D) etc... (there were/are eight of them)
            3) Other major school affilliated with neither Nichiren Shu
               nor Nichiren Shoshu (Honmon Butsuryu Shu, Kempon Hokke Shu,
               Hokkeshu, etc)
            5) Lay-only or less-formally organized practitioner groups

I think Paul has already found the solution to not letting the articles slide into a mud-slinging contest: avoid the temptation to criticize other groups, or even to directly respond to things they've written about themselves. If someone writes something patently false as a statement of fact, someone else should call them on the carpet for it; if we describe ("group ABC believes this way"), not assert ("group ABC is this way"), we should be okay. Note, though, that when we characterize; use scare quotes and qualifiers such as so-called, sarcasm, or ridicule; or directly criticize a description as if it were an assertion, we fall into the point-of-view/bias trap. Also, because people can follow the record of edits and even discussions here almost indefinitely, when we misstep the proper bounds or even resort to personal attacks, we discredit ourselves and perhaps even the groups we're associated with. On the group that posted the Wikispam, I think they were more or less slagging all organized groups, not just SGI. Best regards to all, Jim_Lockhart 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur on the Wikispam comment- those guys hit every Nichiren Buddhist page that I saw.

As far as the organization goes, I intentionally tried to leave it a bit more broad (and my suggested outline was not really complete). For example, I didn't put SGI as a "daughter" group or a subgroup of Nichiren Shoshu, because I fear that people might take offense; I think they might think it somehow implies that SGI is "lesser" somehow.

(Personally, I think that since SGI is basically Shoshu in flavor, with overall huge agreement on the theology and practices, and only a few differences in terms of how they look at things, that your proposed outline is excellent; nonetheless, I think that if it's outlined that way some people might take offense in the future.)

But I really like how your outline is more time-based, and showing more of a heritage. If people understand that an outline isn't meant to indicate "importance" but instead just kind of show "heritage" (more like a family tree), then perhaps it wouldn't be a problem. It's merely an organizational tool, rather than something indicating who's got more adherants or whatever.

My desired end-state would be something that would hopefully be both good enough that it wouldn't need a lot of changes in the future, and it would also be good enough to not tempt people into making tons of changes. Additionally, if people can see (by reading through these many talk pages) that the folks who set up the various Nichiren-based-Buddhism pages were really trying to keep the various flame wars off of the pages and give each group or sub-group a fair reading on their own page, hopefully that would keep those with an axe to grind from coming in and making wholesale changes ("Nichiren Shoshu sucks, and they wear funny hats!" or "SGI practices mind control!" types of slanders).

I think we're getting there, I really do. Again, everyone who's been at this for any length of time deserves a pat on the back; just a little light reading online will demonstrate to all that this can become an issue where people have vicious flame wars that go on forever and leave nobody satisfied.

There's a huge difference, in my mind, between vigorously debating what one considers to be slander against the Law, and simply being able to agree to disagree when it comes to what should be a neutral forum. There's nothing wrong with either; each group's Wiki page should provide enough links that the debate/remonstration against the slanderers is available to anyone who wants to go into that kind of detail.

But let's all hope and agree that Wikipedia is just NOT the place for that debate; it'll make life easier in the long run.

Cheers, Paul --Enumclaw 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS Can whoever knows how to archive cut some more of the page down? It's getting long again. Feel free to remove this remark as well.

Archiving done. Paul, your reading of my outline is correct: it is intended primarilly to be chronologically ordered; that the lineages generally fall into place is incidental. I gets more complicated, though, as you (generic you) get closer to the present, especially in the late 19th century and then again in the 1930s—in the 19th century because of political pressure to rid Japanese religion of "foreign" influence (i.e., Buddhism—the historical term is called Haibutsu Kishaku 廃仏毀釈, and there is some explanation at Shinbutsu Bunri), and in the 1903s and 40s because of government pressure for all Buddhist sects to amalgamate under school-based umbrella organizations. (None of this needs to go into the SGI article—it's just FYI information.) Later Jim_Lockhart 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a lot have changed in the article since I last visited. Apologies, guys and gals, as I am now more concentrated in the science and technology area of wikipedia due to my studies. However, I feel that we can still more concise in the article area as I still feel a lot of "pro-Soka" elements popping up from time to time in the main article. I feel that Ruby, Jim and R have really gone through a lot making the article neutral. Anyway, do you think that certain parts of the main article should be removed and linked to the correct article? Nicheren Dashonin's life story to the Nicheren Article and Doctrines and Practices particular to SGI to Nicheren Buddhism? Thank you all.-Gammadion 08:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)