Talk:Soka Gakkai

---

Previous discussions Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Archive 0: Archive notice
• Archive 1: Some suggested Changes
• Archive 1: Points of Contention
• Archive 2: On Religious Freedom and SGI
• Archive 3: Komeito issues
• Archive 3: Purpose of Komeito
• Archive 3: Definition of shakubuku
• Archive 4: Criticism
• Archive 5: Excommunication
• Archive 5: I-Chinen-Sanzen group
• Archive 6: R & J exchange words
• Archive 7: Discussion about legality of methods in some countries
• Archive 8: Nichiren Buddhism, Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, and SG/SGI
• Archive 8: Different interpretations of WND
• Archive 8: Closing exchanges
• Archive 9: Getting ready to rework the midsection
• Archive 9: Ruby's edits of 2005.11.29
• Archive 9: Suggest new introductory lead
• Archive 10: Who needs a love poem? Give me NPOV!
• Archive 10: Cult reference needs to go
• Archive 11: Rude awakening: where to go from here
• Archive 11: Edits of December 16, 2005
• Archive 11: December 21, 2005
• Archive 12: January–March 2006 (Includes outline proposals for future article configuration)
• Archive 13: Pro & Anti Gakkai Talk
• Archive 14: Discussion Dec 06–Jun 07

SGI voting requests during election time

I know this isn't a source that I can reference properly, but maybe someone who is more familiar with related literature look into this more and find it in published source. My Japanese girlfriend, who is a member of SGI (though not practicing in any serious form) has told me that members of SGI have called her numerous times during Japanese elections, asking her to vote for the New Kemeito Party. They have also asked her to ask her friends, in a very polite way ("if you're not voting this year, could you vote for NKP?") to vote for NKP. I think it is worth mentioning this in the article that indeed SGI is still active in explicitly influencing members votes.

→Different user: I think these issues are touched upon in several sources, I think you could probably do an article check online and then read at the library. The activities you mentioned do happen, but they are limited to the Gakkai in Japan only. The SGI is prohibits the formation of political parties other than in Japan, so this discussion, while pertinent and interesting, is probably best addressed in the wikiarticle for the "Soka Gakkai" instead of here, the "Soka Gakkai International". Japanese social policy and politics are completely different than they are overseas. The parsing out of the different cultural nuances of the Japanese that make the New Komeito a completely valid organization (but only in Japan) is a daunting task. I think it should be done, but in the Japan specific article. The SGI will never have a political party in the West, because in general the West does well in protecting civil rights. In Japan, civil rights are not completely protected as they are here, in the U.S. for example. There's a lot of corruption in government spending that isn't for the welfare of the people, courts do not have strong laws against defamation, or at least, do not have strong penalties, etc. and the ethics of Japanese culture are different than here. In general, Japan doesn't not encourage the freedom of individual expression and often times the media will use bullying tactics to encourage conformity. Please ask your girlfriend about the concept of "the nail that stands out gets pounded down". Individual freedoms are often discouraged, even if it puts the individual in unhealthy circumstances. My mother and relatives are Japanese, I am also relaying their experiences.Tjnebraska 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat common for any church to in some way or another endorse a candidate or party, though in the US it is probably illegal or just a bad idea. Sometimes this is a matter of corruption and other times, my father included being himself a minister, it is simply for a doctrinal reason. Now I am not saying my father ever explicitly endorses people through the church rather as a person giving advice he simply asks that people vote what they believe best represents the expectations and guidelines found in the Bible. So in a sense it can be alright for a group to advocate for a specific party, however if it is presented as a requirement for membership it is quite wrong, if such pressure is ever presented I would suggest writing an essay book about it that can be used as a source. Daniellis89 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi I'm glad to read that other SGI members are writing in and also thoughtful non-SGI members. The last time I checked about a month ago, I saw that numerous people changed the wording of the main article in several places to support innuendos rather than proven facts. I was pretty disappointed that not many other people were changing things back to fact, at least for a few months. I appreciate seeing the interest in this article, and the desire for factual representation.

I think the Criticisms and the Praises of the SGI and Daisaku Ikeda both need to be reputably sourced. I think it is okay for any Wikiuser to make changes, as supported by the guidelines. I think it's perfectly reasonable to delete any unsourced criticism or praise. In my opinion, it would be great if someone tried out a more logical arrangement of the article.

I would have to recheck, but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not support the use of other websites as being a reputable source, which would mean that the "Rick Ross Institute" link under "Criticisms" should be deleted, but I figure I'd have to put up quite a fight if I decided to delete any criticism of the SGI.

Please make any logical or reliably sourced change to the article!

Just a note: In my Wiki-experience in this article, please sign your posts with your user ID. Some believe that not signing your posts is a basis for discounting a users contribution.

Thanks, Tjnebraska 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not signing is globally unacceptable in wikipedia, and some take it as a membership of "insert imageboard URL here" which is translated as trolling. Daniellis89 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Careful with amount of members

Please do take care with the number of members. Its seems cummon practice in both, SGI and Nichiren Shohu, to take pride in the number of their members - hence how many joined officialy. No indication how ever is ever given to the number who still practice this form of buddhism, have left for other schools or indeed practice independently. (Unsigned comment added by User 62.214.250.81 at 04:35, 20 July 2007.)

Purpose of listing famous SGI members

What is the significance of listing SGI members? Is it to out them, or to imply that their membership is an endorsement and therefore substantiation of the validity of the organization or religion? The latter practice is used frequently by new religions in Japan, especially with regard to non-Japanese; but many non-members of these organizations see this practice as a form of outing and many of the persons named do not appreciate this aspect of their personal lives coming under scrutiny. In this context, listing people this way might also conflict with Wikipedia policy. Just some food for thought.... Jim_Lockhart 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is meant to be promotional, the way groups like Scientology use celebrities. Secretlondon 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It also appears to me to be, at best, of little importance, probably irrelevant and not encyclopaedic in style and sounds like the sort of thing you´ll find in a promotional pamphlet, some kind of "celebrity endorsement". Not very rigorous. I support removing it. --Sandrog (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Listing prominent members of a group seems to be fairly common in Wikipedia. For example, the pages on Zoroastrians and Ahmaddiyya include such listings. Personally, I'm interested, and I'd support the reinstatement of the list. 141.211.134.41 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point he is trying to make is that in Japanese culture religion is a VERY personal thing. People don't talk about it. The only place you see mention of celebrities as members of the organization are at that organizations meetings. Yes, we often see mention of famous members, because it is good to be proud when one of our own does well. After the Olympics, when Soka Gakkai had multiple members (at least two) that won gold medals, there was much pride in them. It is not however a matter of public interest that they are part of Soka Gakkai. I think Jim may be right on this one. Remember, we are talking about a country where it is considered better to talk about the weather or stand around silent, than it is to ask how the family is doing. This is not a generalization from a random foreigner, this is from a foreigner who has actually been in Japan close to five years. I agree that the cultural context needs to be taken into account when you decide which names to list and which ones not to. Emry (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters but I would point out that Soka Gakkai frequently (or at least used to) points out its famous members. I have seen NSA books (obviously this one is before the split with priesthood) where they list famous members, including actors, politicians as well as endorsements and so forth. I have also seen a video which is mostly a lecture by Daisaku Ikeda where there is at least 5 seconds showing Tina Turner chanting at a Gakkai meeting. So it is clear these celebrities are of importance to the SGI if that helps settle this issue.Raving Realtor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

Excommunicated?

Excommunicated is the wrong word to use here. The definition is: "officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church." This is not a Christian religion or part of the Christian Church. The word is referring to the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, i.e., ex-communion. Also, it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Religion is the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." There is no "creator god" in Buddhism. (Oh, and I am a member of SGI) DavidRavenMoon (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Excommunicated is the word that SGI uses.

• http://sokaissues.info/split.html
• http://sokaspirit.org/resource/wt/1997-10-17.shtml

Emry (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excommunicated might have started as a Christian word, but etymologically is has grown to include all religions. (Rachelskit (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with Emry: I too am an SGI member and held some leadership positions for several years. There is no question that the SGI leaders state that this lay organization was indeed "excommunicated" by the NS priesthood.Raving Realtor(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

The religion does not make the man in most cases unless the religion was the catalyst for the man meeting peers that change the course of history in a significant way (see Free Masons). A link could be provided for an official SGI site with such lists but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless the former is met. woops forgot to Daniellis89 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone still watching this talk page? A Call for Dialogue

Dear all: I had made comments about wanting to work on this article before, but I'd not ended up with the time to actually do so. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an SGI-UK member and responsibility holder. However, I am also a WP admin and former Mediation Cabal coordinator, so I certainly understand the importance of not "flying one's own flag" in article editing.

Now, I'd actually like the "Criticism" section to stay, at least in terms of what it represents, because I believe it to be important that verifiable criticisms are discussed in the article, in the interests of presenting a fair perspective. However, it's a whole swathe of material that isn't sourced, except for a couple of sources in the first paragraph. It's also got quite a few "weasel word" type generalisations in it. I can't help but think, also, that this article looks more like the result of both pro- and anti-SGI editors venting their opinions versus a coherent attempt at making the subject clear to the reader. I'd like people's input on this, as I'd really love that NPOV warning box to be removed. Criticism should be included, but I think it should be written in specific terms referencing specific sources; also, it isn't necessary to "overguild" the lily, and what should happen is that the counter-perspective is also stated where applicable, with a proper inline source.

This must not be a case of, "Oh, the SGI's already had a lot of positive stuff, so we get to have our criticism without any kind of interference" or "Well, the critics have had their say here, so we can present an exhaustive opinion on the [Daisaku Ikeda]] article how we like." No. That isn't good enough. We need to talk facts from the perspective of what has been printed, not what we believe to be true. My proposed plan of action is:

1. Consolidate each of the topics to clear, logical sections. Much of the material is rather liberally fragmented around multiple sections, with huge pieces of monolithic information going off on their own individual tangents. Conversely, I wonder if the "Criticisms" section should be integrated with the text, so that it might run "Daisaku Ikeda, speaking <when>, stated that [quote/reported speech]... However, Person Y disputes this, on the basis that..."
2. There is no such group of people as "Critics.." There is no International Bureau of General Critique that has a unanimously-negative opinion on every disputed Wikipedia topic. From my extensive past in WP dispute resolution, I have often pictured this unsavoury group of people, The Critics, who appear as a lynch mob in every Wikipedia dispute. We need to eliminate all such usage of generalisations regarding criticism, as we need also to eliminate generalisations of pro-SGI claims, and instead scrupulously and obsessively source every single thing.
3. Write to be read, not to have our opinions heard. If some poor soul was to Google "Soka Gakkai International", they'd get this article, and probably be none the wiser what the SGI even is, let alone both sides of the pro- and anti- SGI movements. Write things once, and write them clearly. Write a clear and detailed synopsis, without being excessively wordy or wishing to include insignificant detail out of proportion to its relevance. At all times, the target audience must be our guiding principle.
4. Contribute our individual perspectives. Regardless of our opinions, both sides have access to information that the other lacks. Whereas I have extensive access to all of the SGI sources, I own no in-print critical publications, and also can't read Japanese. Thus, I'm utterly hopeless when it comes to finding sources for criticisms; and I'm also hopeless following the long-running controversy in the Japanese press. Therefore, the more critical amongst you have skills and capacity that I do not have, and I should be most grateful for your support. Equally, those of us who are SGI members have unparalleled access to official publications, lectures, books and so forth that we can reference.

What do people think? I'd really like some good, constructive dialogue on the above points, and whether people think this proposed approach would work. I'll go ahead and start it if nobody thinks there's anything severely wrong, but I really want this to be a collaborative effort from all sides. Thanks so much, everyone, for your time and brainpower! Indeed, the key to success here is, I think, by treating this article more as a dialogue between a range of viewpoints than a statement, showing who's speaking at all times. (SGI members: we've been trained excellently to accomplish this. Let's lead the way, eh?) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material on excommunication

I have removed the following a reverted the previous material, as this misrepresents the content of the cited source:

However, due to a number of ongoing issues and disputes that existed between the High Priest Nikken Abe and the leadership of Sōka Gakkai, Nichiren Shoshu excommunicated the entire membershipof both the Sōka Gakkai in Japan, as well as the entire SGI (Soka Gakkai International) as its lay organizations in November 1991—although both together easily exceeded upwards of 11 million members worldwide.

Further, there are several problems with the veracity of the removed material:

1. The dispute was not a personal one between these to men, it was doctrinal and between the organizations;
2. The organizations Soka Gakkai and SGI were stripped of their status as lay organizations affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu in 1991. The first excommunication of any individual came in 1992 (and it was of Ikeda personally, not of anyone of the general membership); the general membership were never excommunicated, though they lost their status as temple members much later, in 1997. If you want to present Soka Gakkai's interpretation of how events unfounded, fine; but source it, and don't removed sourced material because it conflicts with it. —–Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Non RS and unreferenced sources

I have removed a non_RS source. Because somebody calls their blog a cult watchdog, or whatever, doesn't change its status. It's still a blog. Which is not a reliable source by wiki criteria. Please consult the criteria for RS if you doubt this.

Similarly, naming an apparent book in parentheses is not sufficient to reference information.

If the criticisms alleged are widespread, as claimed, then there presumably will be no difficulty in finding RS for them. Even then, they will still need to be expressed proportionatly and in the proper context Bluehotel (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Attacking the Soka Gakkai

It is a violation to Wikipedia rules to make defamatory remarks and it is a violation to Wikipedia rules to include unreliable information and/or unverifiable data, and for this reason I have removed the entry titled Soka Gakkai and the Yakuza entered by;121.115.225.89 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC). The deleted paragraph states that: "In Jake Adelstein's new book "Tokyo Vice", one passage indicates that Juzo Itami was about to make a film on the Soka Gakkai/Yakuza connection before he died under mysterious circumstances". This type of "information" is below any standard of reliability or reason to be included as a "proof" and it degrades the quality of Wikipedia as a source of information. The author also stated that a certain "murder went unsolved for years (the Yokohama lawyer Sakamoto) before it was finally discovered that a religious group was responsible (Aum Shinrikyo)", but this has nothing to do with the subject of the current article, being the Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai - following the steps of Nichiren 1222 - opposed authoritarianism and was the subject of suppression and attacks since its inception. It was banned by the Japanese military authorities during the II W W and had its leaders impriosned for disagreeing with the demands of the oppressive authorities. The same forces which attacked the Soka Gakkai still take now other forms. See: Why the Soka gakkai is Attacked: http://www.buddhawill.com SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________

Rather than retitling and editing the offending passage, wouldn't it have been better to leave it as in and refute it in the text? The rule that you quote seems to me to refer to reference pages, and not Talk pages. Cutting out things out of a Talk page simply because they seem to be offensive runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, including a link to a pro-Gakkai page makes it seem as though you are suppressing information and attempting to supplant it with your own point of view. SGI should be able to defend itself directly, and there are enough members on this list who are willing and capable of that. (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________________

Regarding the comment above: Wikipedia pages are not a place for spam or abuse. There is a difference between "Information" and "spam" aimed at abuse. Wikipedia is not an internet vilification tool but a place for reliable or traceable information. The subject of the article is Soka Gakkai, which has nothing to do with Aum Shinrikyo and the forceful inclusion of a terrorist organisation (and which was investigated by the police and the courts) as an 'example' of a 'religious group' is not only meaningless but indicates an intention for abuse of Wikipedia degrading its quality. There was nothing to "refute" in the deleted passages because there was no verifiable information offered. Texts based on : "I heard that someone heard that ..." this meaningless spam is utterly rejected in Wiki practice.

As for what you mentioned " SGI should be able... ", well, it is beyond my ability to tell or to dictate the SG what they should do. My entry about opponents of SGI is very relevant to the subject. The reference includes a documented account of conflict between the SG and her opponents. All the facts included in the mentioned source are traceable and were historically recorded - in particular regarding the dispute with the military authorities during the II W W and the priesthood in early 1990. Please accept that any organisation has opponents and there is nothing wrong in presenting why the SG has opponents - based on quotes from both sides - entered here in the most impartial presentation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________

Jake Adelstein was a reporter at Japan's biggest newspaper for over a decade. They printed what he learned from anonymous sources on a regular basis. Those sources remain anonymous to protect them, in this case, from the reprisals of the yakuza, but that in no way lessens the quality of information, which is being reported by a recognized authority who would not have written it if he did not have reason to believe it was accurate. For these reasons, it would be fair to cite the allegation that Soka Gakkai is tied to the yakuza.verjus75 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________

Despite the above concerns, the Japanese version of this article (not the Talk page) discusses Adelstein's allegations and the connection to the Goto-gumi. 98.243.172.27 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What Does Attacking and Criticizing the SGI Have to Do With the Kempon Hokke? September 26, 2010 Mark Rogow

Time , circumstance, and teachings. Nichiren had Nembutsu, Zen, Ritsu, True Word, and Tendai [Mikkyo] with whom to contend...........

Answer to above : That lengthy almost 10 pages lecture by Mark Rogow , starting with the above sentence about "Time....." is only an abuse to Wikipedia principles. It is even unacceptable in social discussion to bombard others with one-sided view and dominate the speech for over 10 pages - on account of a concise, short and clear delivery of "timely" information.

What is the use of putting 10 pages of one-opinion - "discussion" - if people are going to use the mouse to scroll down the end of that clogging text ASAP? Let the Commonness prevail. And please accept that this particular page is about the Soka Gakkai. not about promoting Hokke Kempon, Nembutsu, Riysu True Word, Tendai or Christianity, Scientology-Aum, etc...all of which are completely unrelated to this Article. Please have discussion on your different matters at private websites. Again: this Discussion is about The Soka Gakkai. For this reason clogging the page with about 10 pages of irrelevant views of personal understanding of other religions - this is a distraction and avoidance of the subject. Inputs which do not respect time and contents are simply not communicative. For this reason I will delete these 10 pages of unrelated Hokke Kempon (which in fact was not mentioned anywhere in SGI literature, nor it is of any relevance to the subject). . SafwanZabalawi (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________

World Scholars Exchange of Views with SGI

Following invitations from scholars from various Universities around the world, SGI President lectured about Buddhism on 32 lectures. The subject of these university lectures was about Mahayana and Lotus Sutra's teachings: http://www.daisakuikeda.org/index.php?id=156

Many scholars - some Noble Prize Winners such as Michael Gorbachev and Linus Pauling - exchanged views on issues facing humanity and the future. Some of their dialogues which were published in 23 books - were translated into various languages. http://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/books/books-by-category/dialogues.html

The mentioned books contains an open exchange of views of world figures who are NOT MEMBERS of SGI and who are NOT BUDDHIST, and who are not promoting SGI, but exchanging opinions about world issues and life in general. (Their views were sometimes different from SGI teachings, nevertheless these books constitute an impartial exchange of opinions). For impartial researcher about SGI, these world wide available books constitute a reliable, clear and currently traceable source of un-baised information about SGI perspectives as seen by nonSGI scholars world wide, in the fields of Education, Peace and Culture. Some universities in China had established special departments to study SGI literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisaku_Ikeda

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Books on Sōka Gakkai

I came across a reference to a couple of books on Sōka Gakkai which I thought people might find useful in developing this article. The books might add some much needed balance.

• James A., Dator (1969). Soka Gakkai: Builders of the Third Civilisation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• James W., White (1970). The Sokagakkai and Mass Society. California: Stanford University Press.

The sect is also mentioned in the following book, in which it is described as "manipulationist":

• Wallis, Roy (1976). The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological analysis of Scientology. London: Heinemann Educational Books. p. 156. ISBN 0-435-82916-5. Scientology displays a fusion of charismatic and bureaucratic domination also evident in some other manipulationist sects. It was a notable feature of Christian Science during the lifetime of Mrs Eddy, and appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai.

HairyWombat 00:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

That was an "Empty Basket " Argument against the Soka Gakkai.

First of all; this Discussion Page is about the Soka Gakkai and not about Scientology or the Christian Churches or others. Including irrelevant subjects to the discussion is red herring. Adding noise-data instead of related information goes beyond the definition of "Discussion Page".

Example of an "Empty Basket" argument: "Scientology displays a fusion of charismatic and bureaucratic domination also evident in some other manipulationist sects. It was a notable feature of Christian Science during the lifetime of Mrs Eddy, and appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai".

An irrelevant to the Soka Gakkai someone's criticism to - or support for - Scientology, Christian Science, Aum sect, etc...shows absurdity and lack of arguments.

It is also against Wikipedia rules to quote unreliable sources (such as the quote above) which states that a feature of a Christian sect "...appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai". Evidently the writer himself was unsure about his own statement, carefully stating "appears to be". Appears to be -this is a clear indication of lack of certainty and lack of verifiability.

Arguments based on "Appears to be" or "maybe" ...have a place in some internet discussion groups but not on the Wikipedia as they degrade the quality of Wikipedia as a reference.

It is also clear that a book which was published more than quarter a century ago - is not a meaningful reference, as we are now in the year 2010. What misleadingly "appeared to be" to that writer over 25 years ago - clashes with the truth of the contemporary situation of support of world scholars, acknowledging{{citation needed, Daniellis89 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)}} the Humanism of the Soka Gakkai International. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________ If the texts are not neutral or a written by proponents of the article at hand, given a controversial nature that it may posses, the source becomes unreliable. Sun Tzu's art of war was published 2600 years ago but it is still relevant today. Furthermore the texts Soka Gekkai uses as a foundation of beliefs are far more than 25 years old, which by your logic, makes them unreliable. To the majority of Buddhists, Soka Gekkai is a cult, just as Aum is a cult in the eyes of Soka Gekkai. All sects are deviations of original doctrine that result in a clash of doctrines which cause them to be mutually incompatible. Appears to and maybe are valid words when used appropriately as they beg the reader to draw a conclusion. The same goes for Appears to be. Daniellis89 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________ Hi Daniellis89; I agree with your view that it is valid to quote an old document - which is over 2500 years - if the subject was about that “unchanged-in-time” document. But the subject here is about an organisation which developed dramatically in time after freeing itself from the Priesthood influence. To mislead Wikipedia readers by someone’s opinion given 25 years ago as current now about SG and which was AT THAT TIME dominated by the Priesthood, this is unfair to the truth. The Priesthood influenced the SG to the degree of open threats to its leaders position and forcing a resignation in 1979 (making it clear that they had the diecision on SG activities at ALL that time - until 1991, when both became separate).

It is fair to acknowledge that SG is opposed the spirit of fanaticism whether racial, ethnic or religious http://www.sgi.org/resource-center/introductory-materials/sgi-charter.html and that it has records of working for peace with other individuals and organisations world wide http://www.sgi.org/resource-center/ngo-resources/ngo-resources-overview.html SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) ________________________________________________

Presidents sention

In the interest of accuacy I have edited the section towards the end of the page which listed the Presidents of the Soka Gakkai as it listed Daisaku Ikeda as being the third and current President, serving from 1960 - present. Ikeda actually resigned as President in 1979 and there have been three Presidents since then, the third being still in office. Ikeda is, however, the current President of the SGI. So I have edited this page to reflect this, showing the successive Presidents and there dates of succession and retirements/deaths. Mollari08 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit request}} I think an info box would be useful, giving overview info of when the org was founded, what year, current president etc etc. i've already added an image, but am not sure how to add the info box. Steve (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong edit request template. It's not because of any conflict of interest, I just don't know how to add the info box. Steve (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but it may be Template:Infobox religious group you're looking for. Just copy it into the top of the article and fill in the parameters as needed. - SudoGhost 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the box, but can't get the image of the flag to show in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. - SudoGhost 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you can't change the name of the parameters, such as changing population to members here, because if it doesn't recognize the parameter name, it won't show up at all in the infobox. - SudoGhost 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help! Steve (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the infobox for now, I'll add another one when I find one with different parameters [and I know how to add it now, LOL]. Thanks for your help. - Steve (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International?

What is the difference [if any] between the two? Ikeda is no longer president of SG, but he is president of SGI. Should some info on this be added to the article? - Steve (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This article, on the pic of Ikeda, says that he is current president of SG. But according to the Ikeda article, he was succeeded by Hiroshi Hōjō. I do think this needs to be clarified. - Steve (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sōka Gakkai is the organisation which functions in Japan, the original organisation, whereas Sōka Gakkai International is the collection of all the Sōka Gakkai's organisations in other countries around the rest of the world. Ikeda is the Honorary President of the Sōka Gakkai, but not the actual president, though he is the president of the Sōka Gakkai International. This is probably just a typing error and I've changed the caption with the picture you mentioned. Mollari08 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. - Steve (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed passage about Bodhisattva vow in Ch 16 of LS

I removed a passage saying that the Bodhisattva vow in a stanza in Ch 16 of the Lotus Sutra say's "...to make all persons equal to me..." This isn't a Bodhisattva vow, it was the Buddha's original vow since he attained Buddhahood in the remote/eternal past. - Steve (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar or Chinese Lunar Calendar?

SGI's Dictionary of Buddhism gives dates as "the fourth month", "the eight month" etc. As far as I know, it never says "April" or "February". I suspect that the dates are actually the Chinese Lunar calendar, and not the Gregorian Calendar. - Steve (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POV Template added to 'reception'

This section seems biased to me. Statements like: "researchers find that arguments on policy issues and good governance lead Sōka Gakkai members to support New Kōmeitō". Is that passage an effort to promote a Political Party?

Deleting incorrect description about the Split

Various parts of the paragraph about the Split with Priesthood require a radical clean up:

• It is against Wikipedia rules to insert personal or unverified views such as: SGI members often describe their group as Buddhism's first Protestant movement, since its excommunication by Nichiren Shōshū in 1991.[24]. There is no reference to this statement, and - what's worse - the reference [24] associated with it is misleading and biased against SGI: a New York Times article describing "unease" due to SGI growth: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/world/a-sect-s-political-rise-creates-uneasiness-in-japan.html.
• The paragraph about the Split has to deal with causes of the Split. The Hokkeko membership is immaterial and has absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the split:

The, the traditional lay group associated with Nichiren Shōshū, experienced a spurt of fast growth in the early to mid 1990s following a split between the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and Sōka Gakkai over doctrinal and practical differences. The Split is not about Hokkeko, therefore inserting the Hokkeko and and Nichiren Shoshu own regulation ( reference: Nichiren Shōshū nyumon, p. 240) will be deleted as confusing and misleading.

• Again, the paragraph avoids the truth about what caused the split and focuses on Hokkeko membership and Nichiren Shoshu own regulations: these Sōka Gakkai and SGI members lost their standing as temple members unless they renounced their affiliation with Sōka Gakkai and SGI, as per a change to the Nichiren Shōshū bylaws decided two months earlier.[27] SGI members are SGI members and this paragraph is about the doctrinal differences with the Priesthood which caused the Split, and which was mentioned but not explained "a number of ongoing issues and doctrinal disputes between the priesthood and the leadership of Sōka Gakkai"

What are these issues?

• The "Conferral of the Gohonzon" part describes the opinion of the Priesthood: "regarded by the priesthood as the high priest’s prerogative, and lay believers had been long taught to support that view". The Priesthood's refusal to confer Gohonzon on SGI members led chief priest Rev. Sendo Narita of Joen-Ji temple, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan, to offer (1993) a woodblock Gohonzon originally inscribed by the 26 High Priest Nichikan Shonin, to be conferred on SGI members. SGI Gohonzon was not mentioned in the paragraph, which needs an overall shake up.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the information which has been deleted was relevant and important as this section isn't just about the issues behind the Split but also the actual events of the Split and should all be replaced into the section, though you are right about the original first paragraph's reference. This being said, however, it was important to clarify the reasons behind the Split which has now been added in.

The section which mentions the Hokkekō isn't an unrelated piece, as it illustrates the effects on the Sōka Gakkai resulting from the excommunication, and should still be included. "The Hokkekō, the traditional lay group associated with Nichiren Shōshū, experienced a spurt of fast growth in the early to mid 1990s following a split between the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and Sōka Gakkai over doctrinal and practical differences. Friction between the two surfaced as 1990 drew to a close, sparking an inflow of Sōka Gakkai members into Hokkekō that accelerated for a while after Nichiren Shōshū stripped Sōka Gakkai of its status as a lay organization on November 28, 1991." This should be mentioned at the end after the initial explanation of the issue, possibly under a sub-heading about the effects of the Split. Mollari08 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree here with Mollari, also did not only Hokkekō, but also other groups of Nichiren Buddhims experienced a substantial growth and some left Nichiren Buddhism altogether. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

After the Split

As is required by Wikipedia rules, citation from independant sources are necessary and should be included in the text of articles. I have added a section : "After the Split" - which includes research artcles and books of university scholars after the Excommunication, and finally the impact of the split on SGI (regarding the excommunication as a spiritual independance).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I am trying to stay clear from editing this article in any greater depth and rather add some issues here in the talk. I must admit, that citing Mentraux isn’t really the most neutral source … honestly now, Montraux appears in official SGI bookshops because he comes to a conclusion in his works that puts a positive light on SGI.

The paragraph is anything but unbiased now … it reads as if the ‘excommunication’ was an act of liberation. To some (i.e. those in SG) this might be true, but it then makes one wonder why in the days of the split both sides argued with such vehemence. NST/Hokkeko could then argue that they were liberated form SG influence on temple issues. And anyone familiar with the issue, anyone who witnessed the conflict at the time knows that the verbal (and not always only verbal) attacks between the two groups were in parts well out of order!! Hierarchy and authority did by all means play an important role --- who had the authority on dogmatic issues which would then mean who was in ‘command’ of the lay believers. This would then suggest that SG was, and is, free of any hierarchical structure itself, this however, I would strongly disagree with.

By the way, I think it’s a bad idea if members of the respective groups correct each others views in Wikipedia on such a controversial issue … it just ends up to appear to any external as an ongoing mudslinging – still going on after 20 years +. Both sides simply had and have to this day irreconcilable differences. Using Wikipedia to make one side look better than the other is a bad idea and in the end it will strip both articles off credibility and neutrality.

It might be worth finding a person either in the Japan or Buddhism portal, preferably someone who is not even a Nichiren Buddhist, but who has knowledge on the issue and most of all someone who is neutral. I just believe that when participants of a conflict write about the conflict their views will hardly be neutral. It is also remarkable how much space is given to the split in the SGI article. It might be a challeging task, but the most active authors from both sides should maybe agree on a third neutral author ... get a paragragh composed on the issue in the respective article and then have it locked for the time being. Every now and again when one reads either the article on SGI or Nichiren Shoshu it has changed considerably. I believe its time a solution to this should be found, that both sides can live with ... otherwise in the long run both sides will loose in terms of credibilty here in Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap: Please consider this article as a good challenge for expanding our acceptance of the truth.

You are criticising Daniel Metraux because he expressed a view which you do not like. This person is non-Buddhist and is a respected university researcher. His opinion is not different from B. Wilson and K. Dobberlaere, Richard Seager, prof. Bumann or also Jane Hurst and many others .....who studied the conflict between SGI and N.Shoshu. All of these researchers are authors of articles and books which - if biased - would affect their own professional responsibilities, their credibility and integrety and also the merit of their universities. All of them are neutral, impartial and non-Buddhist.

I don't understand your objection to the fact that the excommunication is celebrated in SGI as liberation, this IS a fact, and if the NST feels the same (liberated) then fine, how great, let all people celebrate liberation.

Wikipedia is about recording impartial facts. If you find any part of article which contradicts facts or is lacking refrence then you have the right to challenge or change it - provided you justify your editing by a proof. I will do this and I am challenging now the section about the Hokkeko, which has nothing to do with SGI. Why to insert that section? To say that Hokkeko gained some members out of the split - this is an acknowledgement of Hokkeko's aim to spread authority over some SGI members (many of whom left Hokkeko later). And what has the article to do with whatever rule of N Shoshu in 1997? And this nonsensical description that SGI members "MOST MISTAKENLY" believe that... what a nonsense! Is this within Wikipedia rules to insert irrelevant advertisment for Nichiren Shoshu / Hokkeko and their rules in 1997 and describe SGI members as having mistaken belief about whatever.....Please bring proofs of why inserting this section is necessary - also: the proof that SGI members are even interested in "priesthood rules" and that they are mistaken in what ever.

Finally, you are asking for a solution to this unending war between the 2 sides. Nichiren Daishonin said it is the Actual Proof that decides. It is the Actual Proof of working for self-development, KosenRufu & humanity is the solution. Attaining Buddhahood and delivering the proof of behaviour is the solution. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I question Metraux not because I do not like his views, but rather because I question his neutrality, same goes for Brian Wilson  – something that will surely not bring whole educational institutions to crumble as it happens every day. I am an academic myself and just because an academic says something does not make it intangible to what conclusions he or she may come to. But since we are in the talk section of the article this my opinion nothing more nothing less.

The term liberated seems to me to be a bit over the top … two organisations did not get on with each other, one kicked the other out, loads of harsh words on both sides end of story. I strongly would reconsider that this liberation is a fact though, unless however SG officially says so – it then would be down to the individual member what they make of it, as I do know active SG-members who would disagree with the term liberated, as they feel the issue is coming out of their ears. To say that all SGI-members are human is a fact, to say that the earth circles the sun is a fact, to call it a fact what each and every SGI-member may think or not is quite daring though.

Having said that, the term ‘liberation’ suggest a suppression to be liberated from, which then would make me ask why SG waited to be stripped of its status as a lay organisation? It then would mean that keeping ties with NST was somewhat irresponsible or not? Even more so sending millions of people on a pilgrimage to Taiseki-ji right into the centre of utter evil and let them even pay for it?? Sounds fishy to me. Yet again this is an opinion.

Hokkeko gained members ... sure they did … anyone in SG who sided with the temple went to Hokkeko … some went to other Nichiren Schools … nobody ever said that the majority left SG, but there was a shift in membership – it’s a fact. Since NO Nichiren School ever makes public who leaves it will be hard to find a reference. And certainly both sides will celebrate the lost sheep coming ‘home’.

If you do quote me, quote me correctly, never ever did I say that ‘SGI-Members most mistakenly etc. and so forth’. I myself was a member of SGI in 1997, joined 1986, remained to be until 2005, and it wasn’t until 1997 that ALL in SGI were now officially kicked out by Nichiren Shoshu. I guess NST had some sort of amnesty until then … we all know that the dispute was on its peak by then.

You quite nicely, for the most part, summed up the issue in the article about Nichiren Shoshu in an unbiased manner. I am not a member of NST, but by doing what you did you also gave the space to the issue that it takes up in NST today. The split is in  NST now and again refered to not more though. In the SG article it takes up quite an amount of space however as if SG has to justify itself in the aftermath. To me – yet again an opinion- it then seems that SG struggles more than NST who seemed to have moved on doing whatever they are doing. Finally let me say that almost in every language articles on SG in Wikipedia do read like an advertisement, something you said Wikipedia should not be about. You said ‘Please consider this article as a good challenge for expanding our acceptance of the truth …, let me tell you what Wikipedia is also not about – its not about  proselytizing. What you consider to be a truth becomes a belief, to which you are by all means entitled to hold dear, when you step out of your own religious system. Adherents to other schools of Nichiren Budhism find other truths than you that they are also entitled to, as do adherents to other Buddhist traditions and other religions. Your ‘truth’ is your personal belief, that I would fight for for you to hold on to, but its not the universal 'truth' to everyone else. It’s a thin line that can easily be crossed, I do too have my beliefs, but I have to identify them as such when writing here.

Having said that in both articles one paragraph is missing … the one about the effects of the split. A paragraph that highlights the suffering that was caused, about the marriages that suffered when one partner held dear to another truth than the other, about insults that were spoken out - online and in life. A paragraph about how the rest of the Buddhist world, Nichiren Buddhism or not, was speechless to witch length both sides went to make the other look bad. A paragraph asking how  any of the two sides could seriously be talking of world peace while fighting each other so viscously. Gassho--Catflap08 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Being an academic yourself, you can also gain from the knowledge of other academics who publish their findings, such as Metraux, Wilson, Dobberlaere, Richard Seager, prof. Bumann, Jane Hurst, and many others. When an independant scholar reads the demand of the Priesthood for ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE AND STRICT FAITH in the H. Priest - for them this is an expression of authoritarianism, to put it mildly. So if they express their openminded perspective, this does not mean that they are siding with SGI.

Nichijun Fujimoto, Nichiren Shoshu Head Temple's chief administrator, 12 Jan.1991 stated: "To talk about the priesthood and laity with a sense of equality are expressions of great conceit. In fact, they correspond to the five cardinal sins…” - what would an impartial academic sense in this but utter arrogance and disdain for ordinary people? However, if you feel strong about correcting other academics, then I do not think that Wikipedia is the best place for publishing your findings. With honest respect to your person and Buddha nature, I must say that you are oblivious of how emotional your views are, and how your statements about the split are based on who was right (the Priesthood, of course) and who was wrong.

SGI members are very clear about rejecting the domination of the Priesthood and about their spiritual freedom, and if not they would not continue in the gakkai, as is the case with some unsure individual. We live in a time of freedom. Each person is free to join whatever he/she sees inspiring. Some do not have any inspiration and sit on the fence arguing about the past. One GREAT results of the spiritual independance of SGI is the change in the system of prayers, from a complicated system invented by the Priesthood (to suit their temples locations, resulting in 5 + 3 recitation of the same Sutra text) into a modern, practical form of one recitation as recommended by Nichiren. This would have been impossible under the Priesthood's "Absolute Obedience" commands and conservative spirit. No where in the Gosho Nichiren recommended what the NST does in prayers. I practiced under the Priesthood for motre than 7 years, and I know how incorrect it was to do the Gongyo the Priesthood way, because - having just 20 min time in the morning for prayer - the time was consumed by 5 lengthy repetation of the text and no time for chanting was left (while chanting time should be longer than recitation time). The GREAT comfort and strong life force experienced by SGI Gongyo is a precious result of the Spiritual Independance. It was the MEMBERS who demanded the change in the form of prayers, and SGI HQ agreed. In itself this is a significant indication for independant academics who see the revolution of lay believers setting the form of prayers rather than accepting silently an authoritative form with Absolute Obedience. So no wonder impartial views support SGI.

I find this exchange meaningful. Please look at the future rather than digging the dead past, and who took divorce "because of the split" etc... The future is more important than the past and the Gohonzon has the power to transform any suffering, starting from our own.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Being an academic myself I am also interested who submits the funding to someone’s work, this at times can be an interesting task. ‘Cui bono?’ is a question that some academics would then tend to ask. So yet again I was not correcting anyone I voiced my doubts in terms of neutrality … not in the article, but here in the talk section. I am not very emotional about the priesthood I just think this whole article is packed with emotions and as I said I stay clear from editing it unless I see something fundamentally incorrect … the article in its current form and underlying theme speaks volumes anyway. And yes you are right especially with many engaged SG-members it’s either wrong or right, with us or against us – a simple view to look at things.

The quote by Nichijun Fujimoto I find very interesting as yet again I must ask that this was a position in NST that did not suddenly come up after or during the split. Having said that a majority of lay members were probably unaware of such rules but high ranking officials of SG surely were not. What the conflict means to me you may ask. Well NST knew all along that SGI was, from their point of view, not exactly in line with the school’s rules and regulation --- but to NST it was far to profitable to keep things as they were. SGI officials knew all along that they had a different view on certain issues; they did not even let their own members know that until NST cut the ties. Personally I believe though it comes down to a very human issue … two ageing men having had lots of unfinished business. Not the fact that both sides had a dispute but the manner in which it was carried out appeared gross to me. To me no side offered a spiritual home anymore. Again you refer to SG-members, the membership comes from all walks of life and yet again some do have different opinions, some even feel that the High Priest then has been substituted by the Honorary President today, a view they certainly would not voice openly, not doing so means in my books that the new found spiritual independence does have its limits too. This is just a hint to only highlight in the article SG’s official position, to then automatically state what all members in the organisation may or may not think is something one finds to be more common to totalitarian regimes. Generally the article needs a general fixing and clean up … What is SGI about, main cornerstones of belief and description of practice. Again it appears that the split has become a corner stone of SGI’s philosophy when just browsing the article.

In my time in SGI we shortened the prayers ourselves when we were short of time – without consent form any HQ, neither myself or anyone that I know asked for a new prayer book … it simply was there one day and we switched to the new prayers … in the old one we prayed for the priesthood in the new one for the three presidents. On a very personal note praying hence meditation is to me not primarily a time issue – it’s a time out for myself to get focused and regain energy and as Nichiren stated reciting the sutra to me is an important part of the practice. Other traditions in Nichiren Buddhism do not have a set standard of prayers but rather a recommended version; some even recite the sutra in their respective mother tongue, some practice the Daimoku some the Odaimoku, some recite more chapters of the sutra than others, some even recite the complete sutra bit by bit every time they pray (than can take several weeks at times). So what may seem revolutionary within your own tradition has been practiced elsewhere all along. So to be honest most of my Wikipedia work is actually not done in the English version anyway and my prime field is Nichiren Buddhism as a whole, but when participating in other Buddhist forums (of all Buddhist traditions) its amazing how SG-members slag off the ordained of just any Buddhist tradition (including other Nichiren traditions) and even the ordained of other faiths. In most cases it turns out  to be an utter display of ignorance of other traditions beliefs, structure and history. It’s a pity to watch at times and I wonder what the origin of such behaviour might be.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am an non-buddhist watcher of this page. I am not going to edit just yet, but I have to say that this section does not seem impartial to me. It's more a polemic for the SGI side of the argument, and also gives undue weight to something which (in the context of an encyclopedia article about one school of one line of one branch of Buddhism) is not especially important. It is clear that very strong views are held within SGI about this matter (as part of their creation story), however that does not necessarily make it important for this article, or mean that only one side (however well-referenced) should be presented at length. I vaguely remember reading a suggestion that the split was in fact motivated by economics - if I can find it adequately referenced I may add that point of view. Mcewan (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

SGI Teachings and Other Buddhist Groups

As the past section touches upon the subject of difference between SGI teachings and other "ORDAINED - based" sects, it can be beneficial to investigate more. I'll take Nichiren's spirit in his perspective towards these sects. But first, Catflap, : Nichiren would not have agreed with your statement about a slanderous to ordinary people priesthood quote as being "interesting", as you mentioned: "The quote by Nichijun Fujimoto I find very interesting" . Nichiren would have firmly denonced it as a manifestation of arrogance and disdain for lay believers, with a misguided priest claiming superiority on ordinary people, and Nichiren would have added that Arrogance is the first of the 14 Slanders. This perspective erases the need to follow your further statements and details you were digging in and I find weak and meaningless.

If you are interested in understanding the difference between Nichiren Buddhism of SGI and Traditional Buddhism, please try to investigate these short (1 page) articles:

Traditional Buddhism: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Buddhism_and_Traditional_Schools.html Zen: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Zen_and_SGI_Buddhism.html Tibetan: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Compariosn_between_Tibetan_and_SGI_Buddhism.html Nichiren Shu : http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Shu_Buddhism.html PureLand Buddhism: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Amida_and_SGI_Buddhism.html

You say that "its amazing how SG-members slag off the ordained of just any Buddhist tradition" - well it is not the ordained themselves, but their teachings which is driving people to sufferings. For you, the word "Ordained" may be of huge influence, but this is not a Nichiren spirit, who cared less about titles and authorities. But all in all, catflap, I am optimistic towrads your path, because the Lotus Sutra says that making an adverse connection with it is also a way for future realisation and enlightenment. Welcome back in the Back to the Future to SG activities standing tall against corrupt authorities, ordained or under other covers. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again your reply speaks volumes. It is very INTERESTING that the word interesting caught your attention more than what I found to be interesting. Interesting enough I did not say that I support the priests view, as I already have mentioned I do not support the teachings of Nichiren Shoshu full stop. Their interpretation of the sangha is somewhat special anyway. Still I do not know why SGI reacted instead of acted. Personally I would not know what Nichren may think … I can only ponder of what he maybe would have thought. The articles you mentioned I already know and yes indeed they are strikingly short … again the official SGI sources are limited and good grief I can only imagine what would happen if one would use the respective schools own material or even use material of non-buddhist.

Thanks for your comment on priests, yes normally they are ordained. So since the average SGI -member would normally not get along with a priest of Nichiren Shoshu all other priests of other Buddhist faiths are out to let people suffer, indeed the ordained of just any other faith too? Is that right then? Never mind that Nichiren himself wore the robes of a priest, never mind that there would be no priests if there were no 'lay' believers, never mind that there would not be a SGI if there would not have been priests. And again no, I do not speak in defence of Nichiren Shoshu. Gassho. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, we do not respect a doctor because he/she is "ordained" with a degree - we respect a doctor because of applying skills and benefiting and easing people's sufferings. The same goes for "priests". Respect for a priest is not due to his - rather - ordination or robe, but his Buddhist behaviour and actions. ( There are many priests who are respect worthy and others who commited crimes, you hear about this in the news). Nichiren was a priest but he did not stick to this category to provide him with any authority or special status. He also strongly disclosed the arrogance of other "ordained priests". Any focus on the "ordained" - manifests a spirit of either arrogance or submission to "spiritual authority". Buddha nature exists in all people and is the highest level of life, no one has any spiritual authority (or Holiness) just because of ordination. BUT many people do not agree, and prefer to prostrate and be submissive.

You see, with the possibility that ANY person can attain Buddhahood (acc.to Nichiren) in one's own circmstances, abolished ALL distinctions of priest and laity and the Gosho is full of such statements . such as: ..."be it priest or lay believer....".

Without you noticing it, you have lot of resentment towards SGI, but you have to admit that SGI does not stop you personally from developing yourself, or from having a correct perspective of evaluating philosophical matters in an impartial way. To be impartial is an important value. To be impartial you should acknowledge the fact that it is other schools of Buddhism which are in strong, aggressive and even poisoned animosity to SGI, attacking, spreading rumours, demeaning ordinary people and the like. You see; we were the organisation of the sick and poor, the most "mean" people in the view of SG attackers. N

Whatever the case, we live in an age of spiritual freedom. People are free to choose. I know some people who could not continue in SGI just because the teachings are challenging. Facing one's weaknesss is the most difficult thing in life. Surpassing one's ego is not easy. Human Revolution and courage to free oneself from limitations require immense efforts and discipline, and some people are simply not into that. Fair enough. But some do not want to acknowledge their own limitations and go on attacking SGI, arrogantly questioning past history rather than making their own achievement and own history of self-development, and creating value.

ALL religious groups insist - of course - that THEIR OWN TEACHINGS are the only correct one. In this regard, you'll acknowledge the broadminded teachings of Nichiren and SGI in the following statement: "In his letters, Nichiren mentioned various non-Buddhist sages and philosophers whose humanistic views were based on the happiness and security of ordinary people: “...the wisdom of such men contained at heart the wisdom of Buddhism” WND 1122 On this subject, P Ikeda comments:

“Nichiren Daishonin writes that some people come to a correct view of life through systems of thoughts and philosophies other than Buddhism. One who encounters the Lotus Sutra but is prejudiced and does not try to comprehend its true greatness is inferior, he asserts, to the wise men and saints of non-Buddhist teachings. He also writes “When one knows the Lotus Sutra, one understands the meaning of all worldly affairs”. (The Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra Vol 1. p 55) SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Safwan we are going in circles. You criticise all priest by just any faith based on your experience. A priest, man or woman, is foremost also human. I find your attitude somewhat intolerant as it seems to be in stark contrast to SGI's own charter regarding religious freedom. Other faiths simply do not have an issue with their priest, ministers, pastors, monks etc. as SGI had with its. For you to dash out at anyone ordained is a bit disturbing. At any rate this is the talk section of an article. Our discussion is about our personal views by now. According to Wikipedia the talk section is not a forum though to discuss personal issues which to me appear to be inconsistent with each other. This article has systematically been stripped of just about any critical or alternative views, not because those views were fictitious, but because they did not fit some editors view of the world. This is not in accordance to Wikipedia regulations. You are quite happy to insert just any source that supports your view, even academic ones, but discard just any opposing views, some even on the grounds of being academic … as can be seen in the Nichren Shoshu talk section. This article therefore lacks neutrality in a big way and when looking at its history you have heavily contributed to that fact. An organisation is not being reviewed by an assumed absence of criticism but rather by the way it deals with it – so the editing policy by some speaks for itself and even reaffirms the alleged inability of SGI to face criticism. In contrast deleting opposing views as is the case in this article can be the source for even greater suspicion. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is lot of YOU YOU YOU ...in the text above, but it doesn't matter, really. As for the Wiki articles: instead of complaining here and offering unsubstanitated judegemnts, please be specific in pointing out your arguments in a concrete manner, not a descriptive, judegnental and vague chat. Before I decided to monitor this and other articles there was lot of bias and personal views, even nonsensical statements - rathere than concrete facts suppoerted by references. I introduced and implemented the action that BOTH sides views on a conflict should be included as well as the views of non-committed professional scholar's published research- whatever they are. To face the truth requires maturity, confidence and self-development.

As for the "ordained" and "non-ordained" : If you have an argument to state on Wikipedia article regading this matter please show it. If it correct and referenced it will stay. Other wise it will be deleted according to the rules, and please do not use the talk to bring personal views about this or other subjects.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said a discussion between us two does not seem to work either. Your trying to use the article who in your eyes was right or wrong. This is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing an incorrect title

The previous title of section " Effect on the Soka Gakkai" is ambigiuos. "Effect" of what? And the text in that section was about the Nichiren Shoshu lay organisation, Hokkeko, not about the SGI. So, this means that the title does not match the contents. If you want to add that Hokkeko (maybe Nichiren Shu also?) increased its membership because of the split then fine, that is the effect of the split on NichirenShoshu, not SGI. This is why I corrected that part leaving the text as it is - however please review the text and try to make it meaningful. If there was an increase how many? 10 people? 10.000 members? and what is your proof? Any source of reference or just a rumour? You are bringing ambigious opinions which date half a centuary ago and without any reference of proof. And it is also consistent with the truth to acknowledge that the Priesthood simply failed to disban or destroy the SGI (as they called for).

Another thing: in the text you refer to that SGI members "MISTAKENLY" believe that they are excommunicated...etc. This is laughable indeed! How do you know? What is your reference that SGI members "most mistakenly" whatever....? This sentence about the "mistakenly" - is just an imaginary opinion and should not be included in Wiki articles. I am SGI member for 30 years, and as millions of others I never belonged to any temple and do not care about Nichiren Shoshu's adminstration rules. What you mention is simply incorrect.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Wiki Editors stop Vandalism

It is against Wikipedia rules to delete a text without giving a valid reason. There was a section under the title " After the Split", and it contained the following- which I will reinstall. If anyone erases it I will ask for Wikipedia Editors for their judgement on tye subject and whether it is vandalism. The information included is presented by non-SGI, Non_Buddhist, and impartial professors in religion and philosophy in respected universities around the world. It is not acceptable to delete and silence these opinions just because you do not agree with them. If you have other non-Buddhists who have different opinions on the subject please add to the text. We should not fear the truth:

The split between SGI and the Priesthood attracted the attention of various academic researchers in the field of religion and history. Several books were published about the expansion of the SGI after the split, such as Daniel A. Metraux's 2001 book The International Expansion of a Modern Buddhist Movement: The Soka Gakkai in Southeast Asia and Australia and: How the Soka Gakkai became a Global Buddhist Movement . Other studies by independent scholars were the 1998 Oxford University Press book A Time to Chantby B.Wilson and K.Dobberlaere and :”Encountering the Dharma” by prof. Richard Seager , as well as various other publications. According to Prof. M. Bumann, of the University of Lucerne, Switzerland, the cause of the split was the friction between conservatism and openness, hierarchy and democratization: “A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shoshu and the lay-based, globalized SGI”. . In an analysis of books studying the expansion of SGI after the split, Prof. Jane Hurst of Gallaudet University viewed the split as the result of conflict of interest: “lay members seeking religious support for their lives, priests seeking perpetuation of hierarchical institutions". SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well vandalism is normally reported here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. I would however be somewhat careful on that in respect to you own edit history ... at least on the 500 pages one can see.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Perception of the Soka Gakkai in Time

The section titled “Reception” is stated by Wikipedia editors to be in dispute of neutrality. Respecting the request not to delete the section (or is it the "not to delete the note" about the dispute?) - I just left that section as it is and initiated a new Section: “Perception of the Soka Gakkai”, including part of the text of the disputed section, expanding and presenting both sides of views about each criticism.

The disputed text of "Reception" section is not only biased but borders with using the Wikipedia to introduce nonsensical statements such as: “Outside observers have looked upon SGI’s version of the mentor and disciple relationship as a cult of personality for its focus on SGI President Ikeda as well as the two preceding presidents (and founders) Jōsei Toda and Tsunesaburō Makiguchi.” Outside Observers? Who? There are hundreds of academics who are “Outside Observers” and who do not view the SG as operating on Cult of Personality. Besides, it is just meanigless to state that the cult of personality is extended to 3 Founders of SG 2 of whom who long passed away, and without any supportive reference to this view about cult of 3 personalities. The disputed text mentioned also Nichiren and Shakyamuni as Mentors, so are these also included in the cult of their personalities? Regarding the Cult of Personalities, the SG founders went to prison opposing the cult of Emperor Worship and the third president stood against the Cult of High Priest Worship and Absolute Obedience (to Person of the H.P.): http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/NShoShuP13.html

The disputed section contains defaming and unsubstantiated claims such as:
“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance practiced by Sōka Gakkai members”. What is this “There has been”? Where? When? Any reference? The insertion of such unsubstantiated and imaginary thinking - this is using Wikipedia to put divisive and biased views, which the claimant would have been unable to claim in any professional or legal statement. The Section of “Perception about the Soka Gakkai” traces the impressions it created since early development with focus on main points of criticism and offering references for variety of views including non-Buddhist observers.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, just a calrification: please remember that Wikipedia is not an instrument for lecturing others on what you believe is correct. Your consistent chnaging of the text to introduce the views of whatever sect about what is Master Disciple - this is irrelevant, and please stop lecturing like you did here:

Most of all though it is, traditionally, a personal relationship between two individuals in order to seek knowledge it can be a lifelong bond or be terminated by either side

Your personal understanding of what is "Most of all though it is traditionally..." .. lacks clarity. The text here is about Mentor in SG being a modern naming of the concept of Master in traditional Buddhism - that's all. It is not to hammer the reader with an irrelevant lecture about the "meaning" of Master as some think it is. Those interested to know more about Master and Mentor - have access to refrences. BTW, the way you presented Master was a marriage which ended in devorce as you say: : raising committment in a life long bond of 2 individuals, which can be terminated!!! .This understanding of Master Disciple it is controversial. In SGI literature: the Gohonzon is regarded as the oroginal Mentor - as well as individuals who were or are Mentors. The concept of Mentor in SGI is much more than the weak description you brought, it is not between just 2 individuals but includes millions of disciples and the Mentor is not one Master but a range of Role Models in behaviour including Nichiren's life, mnifested in the Gohonzon. So, your bringing a narrow defintion from your understanding of traditional Buddhism should be balanced by an SG perspective on the subject - but this is not the place for that nor the article is a lecture.

Would you please accord with Wiki rules and kindly EXPLAIN what you are editting and why. To do the changes silently - without declaring what you did and why - this is not consistent with editing and openness. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all not every change has to be explained in great lengths in the talk section. Wikipedia has this nice little tool to comment why and what has been done in the brackets. If changes are minor it is also mentioned. Secondly the paragraph is about the criticism that SGI faces. What it is not about is to decide whether the criticism is right or wrong – it is just there, it exists. What you consider hammering or a lecture (any lecture I read or attend is considerably longer) is simply information.

It briefly explains the core and nature of the criticism and what it is about. And yes in traditional schools this relationship is sometimes defined a bit like a marriage that either side can terminate or not even enter into. It is also no invention that, traditionally, this relationship is a personal one – the information is referenced. So it’s not saying that the traditional concept is better or not, right or wrong, but explaining the nature of the criticism. It comes natural that this traditional definition is in contrast to SG’s definition – otherwise it would not be a controversial issue. Its more than obvious that you are a member of SGI and therefore you will find it hard to understand any critics anyway. This article however is not owned by SG nor by its members, any critical views should and must be mentioned and the content of that criticism should be explained.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I had to got to work I could not elaborate. SafwanZabalawi, your position is more than obvious in either article contributions or talk sections. Once and for all though Wikipedia is not a platform to present SGI's view of the world (certainly one has to mention it in order to understand where they are coming from), but appart from SGI's view of the world what is also part of the article is how the world views SGI. That the view of others is not always in accordance to the organisation you are a part of comes as no surprise. In case of the master-disciple relationship it should be noted, why this issue is a source of controversy and part of it is that key elements are simply treated different in what one calls 'traditional' Buddhism. The reader should be made aware of that – nothing else. There is nothing wrong adding a section about the Mentor-Disciple relationship in SGI as it is one of the corner stones of its philosophy. Combined with the paragraph about SGI criticism the reader would then get a balanced view. While we are talking about it it would be best to do away with the reception/perception section in simply call it critical views. Those views exist and have the right to be mentioned and before you end up in a SGI jargon this has nothing to do with defamation etc. Without knowingly doing it … the way you edit the article … the way you speak in various talk sections you prove the old and most common criticism of SGI – that is does not know how to deal with opposing views. I know SGI members as friends and even family members and to them SGI is the next best thing that happened to the world since the invention of sliced bread … they even contribute the end of the cold war to SGI - but sorry, not everyone shares that view. Some regard SGI a cult, some even say its not Buddhist at all.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, I'll respond to the positive side of your various comments, and say YES, the word "Criticism" should appear in the current section.

As for your personal issues, your friends, family members - Wikipedia is not the forum for this chat. Besides, you have belittled your family members comparing their mind of spiritual belife as valuable as the "invention of sliced bread" - your words.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Perception and Criticism of the Soka Gakkai

I have changed the title from just "Perception" to "Perception and Criticism" of the SG, because I found the word "Criticism" in each of the observations made in the text (about various activities and beliefs of the SG). As Catflap kindly mentioned, Criticism is also a valid point to mention, and I agree. However, in every intelligent presentation: the 2 sides of the accusation/criticism must deliver to the reader their views. We do not live in the Middle Ages where only a "Traditional" criticism" occupies the text without the other side's view. This principle (of offering the perceptions of the 2 sides of the story) was behind editing the paragraph of Mentor/Master - Disciple, which occupies now almost 5 lines of description of both views. References are provided from both sides for deeper study if needed by readers. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The causes for the conflict between SGI and Priesthood

Without any explanation, someone deleted a section referring to the causes of the split. Avoiding mention of the causes of the conflict - weakens the value and the correctness of the article . For this reason I returened the section about the reasons for the Split.

The following text (in italics) had no reason to be in the article because of its unprofessional, ambiguous and incorrect nature: "The relationship between Sōka Gakkai and the priesthood of Nichiren Shōshū has been historically one of give and take." This view is like a story telling with no professional reasoning nor references. It is a POV. Wikipedia artcles have no space for imaginary points of view. And "Give and Take" what?:" While Nichiren Shōshū profited from a substantial growth of adherents and hence income by donations" - , Sōka Gakkai on the other side profited form the support of an established school of Japanese Buddhism" Who said this? Where is it mentioned? This text is giving the false information about the conflict and speaks about financial gain of the priesthood rather than the doctrinal causes of the split. And also: "the issuing of religious objects of worship, the so called Gohonzon' - this sentence is incorrect as Gohonzons were issued only by the Head Temple until the Split. "Ongoing tensions between the two sides were mostly based on authority and doctrine" If so then what are these doctrinal causes? Why hiding them? The causes of conflict should be mentioned in a short concise manner which I returned back to the article. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section Reception deleted and subsituted by Perception & Criticism

The section titled Reception was hanging in the article for few months being under dispute and without any resolution: I have requested interested editors to have a review of that section (which was written as a POV) - but no answer was given. Then I took the same contents of that disputed section and expanded on them in the current section "Perception and Criticism", adding the word "Criticism" of the SG to ensure balanced views and provide appropriate references. The disputed section Reception which I deleted, was biased, lacked support and was a description from a point of view. However, the same points of the deleted Reception - are now found as part of the Perception and Criticism - supported by references.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming ignorance

Catflap, if you want to put a certain statement on Wikipedia you have to support it by a reference or citation. What you did was extraordinary: you put your statement and added that CITATION NEEDED for your own statement. I will be in contact with permanent Wikipedia editors on whether this self-defeating editing is allowed and whether it is not a "clever" trial to show that a statement on one side of criticism - is lacking credibility and that no citation was included to support it: "However official materials[74] state all other religions, including other Buddhist denominations, should be viewed as valuable inasmuch as they are able to support the happiness, empowerment, and development of all people[citation needed]" - This is a perhaps new attitude in Wikipedia: Claiming Ignorance: when someone brings a statment but adds a self-confession that no knowledge about the truth of the statement is known to him/her and wants others to bring a citation on what he/she had put on Wikipedaia article. I think this amounts to misusing Wikipedia. Second point here: is that this article is about the Soka Gakkai, it is not about Nichiren's writings : "Many of Nichiren's writings, however, are about how other forms of Buddhism are incorrect", and if you wish to question Nichiren's writing or attitude you better do that on Nichiren Buddhism page. This article is not about criticising Nichiren Buddhism and your entry here is trying to incite hatred towards Nichiren Buddhism: "Apart from the critical views about the SG as an organisation, it is also criticised for its doctrinal teachings based on Nichiren Buddhism, perceived by some observers to be lacking tolerance towards other forms of Buddhism". What is "perceived by some observers" - against Nichiren is perceived by other observers differently. Your attack on Nichiren's beliefs as lacking tolerance is lacking understanding of his writings - and it is stigmatizing over 20 Nichiren groups other than the SG. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What IS extraordinary that xou deleted a whole pragraph ... one dealing with proselytizing. The citation needed tag says nothing elses that a citation is still needed. The issue as a whole is relevant though.--Catflap08 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• After you had - or maybe another editor? - put the proper citation - I left it as it is. I am still concerned about the implication of attacking Nichiren Buddhism by claiming that it is not tolerant. This is one sided view which can be easily disputed, as those who claim he was not tolerant ignore the historical facts that he was attacked, violently ambushed, injured, sent to exile and survived an attempt to kill him by beheading. Such "tolerant" sects of Buddhism who were behind this aggression expose themselves. But whether someone uses a Wikipedia article on SGI to spread onesided views, defaming Nichiren and incorrectly labelling Nichiren Buddhism - this I think amounts to abusing Wikipedia. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not about abuse, its not about your beliefs and its not about what you hold dear about SGI or Nichiren Buddhism and its not defaming anyone. Nichiren Buddhist of nearly all sects have been confronted with the issue of nationalism and one COULD read that into Nichirens works. Nowhere does it say that Nichiren Buddhists ARE Nationalists, but the issue has been raised within and outside of Japan. You bring up an important point – Wikipedia is not about white-washing. Just as any religious group Nichiren-Buddhism and SGI do contain controversial issues – as a member of SGI you might not like that – but nevertheless those issues exist. Having said that I just reinserted what you deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually SafwanZabalawi, I delt with the citation issue. In truth there was already a citation in the sentence which referenced the information, but whoever put the tag ignored this and reinstated the citation. I simply moved the citation to the end of the sentence to replace the tag.

Also, the issue about the criticisms of intolerance are reported and published criticisms that have been made by people to the public, and, whether or not they can be easily refuted/disputed, they need to be mentioned. In this section it is appropriate as a balanced and unbiased article needs to mention all the views to remain NPOV.

Also Catflap08 didn't add this section of text in, but merely replaced it after it was summarily deleted without proper grounds. It was deleted as an entire section when merely one sentence had a tag attached, which had no reason to be there in the first place. The deletion could be looked upon as an attempt to quietly remove some of the criticisms, which were deleted along with it, all of which were indeed cited.

Just as a side note I am an SGI member, and although I would personally prefer that there weren't any criticisms, I'd rather this was an unbiased article and that critics were proved wrong in their criticisms than ignore or even hide their criticisms from people. The latter just reinforces their view of SGI and gives it undue credence. Mollari08 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation. I deleted what was irrelevant and what was a POV, a story telling, but never mind now, things somehow have settled down except one point about criticism:

I welcome criticism and and benefit from it (either by making corrections or responding with more reseach made). The word Criticism of SG was brought by me in the first place, and I have a different opinion from yours that ..." ...prefer that there weren't any criticisms" - I believe those who oppose SGI are a proof of SGI's reality. The whole point I was trying to make is that criticism is a form of Freedom of Expression - but which requires BOTH sides of the views to be present. BOTH sides, and this was not practiced in the past. This applies also to criticising Nichiren's teachings (as lacking tolerance) as a way to criticise the SG teachings. To portray SGI as lacking tolerance is a POV because in reality SGI is making huge efforts all over the world for Interfaith Dailogues and is recognised by hundreds of scholars from hundreds of universities as an openminded Buddhist organisation of peace. Whoever criticised Nichiren here (as lacking tolerance) is in fact criticising the Right to Expression, by which Nichiren explained the reasons for social disasters of his society. Freedom of Speech was never a tradition in the mind of authorities and their religious supporters, and who can possibly deny this? Those who criticise Nichiren's freedom of speech - should also admit that the response to his brave attitude was beating him, setting his hut on fire, trying to kill him several times, he bled in the forehead from a sword attack, his arm was broken, set to exile twice, and escaped beheading. Lacking Tolerance? Who is lacking tolerance? That's why I mentioned that to bring to the articel some personal views of a scholar (who viewed Nichiren as lacking tolerance, and hence, how bad is SGI) - this is not true criticism, it is a hidden implication to affect the reader's perception, and a response to this was inevitable.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again this is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a debate where one has to bring in the pros and cons on an issue. If a point is raised and referenced, especially when controversial, that is enough. Any other editor can come along though and bring up an opposing argument. I would however not beat the drum too loud on the freedom of speech issue. Almost any religious groups do know limits to freedom of speech especially about internal affairs … one can certainly voice those issues but then it can happen that you are not part of the group any more. SGI is no exception in that … especially when one works for them.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• One has to distinguish between the 2 functions of Article and Talk in Wikipedia. In the Article, points are raised with citations and references. Talk page, on the other hand, is a communication forum between editors to improve the Article, to explain their crucial editing, deletion or changes etc... And it can point out for an editor who mistakenly assumed a certain view - clear arguments and backgrounds, so that the quality of editing will get improved. I'll give you this example of someone stating that SGI follows Nichiren Buddhism and that Nichiren Buddhism is nationalistic or can be perceived as nationalistic. When this view is put under light of reality (not personal perception) then it is not a pro and con debate (that you may think should not be on Talk). Because it was brought up then it has to be corrected: SGI propagates the concept of World Citizenship and its literature defines "Nationalism is Evil" - that should be defeated. Some editors are so consumed by rumours and mistaken views that such a clarification about their attitude is beneficial for all. As for the Freedom of Expression - aren't you enjoying it? I see no problem in accenting this vital human right and explaining how Nichiren's freedom of expression was treated in the most violent and aggressive way by those who claim that his Buddhism lacks "tolerance". I want to thank you for this exchange because it opens a possibility to clarify on Wikipedia page of Nichiren Buddhism his opponents argument about "tolerance".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well just as a side note it is quite remarkable, not just here, but almost anywhere where SGI is discussed its members will quite happily brand negative reports as rumours or originating from tabloids. When the individual who tells of his/her negative experiences of SGI, some do not hesitate to call that individual a traitor or someone out to destroy the org. having a negative life condition. Is can got as far as questioning the persons integrity --- the issues raised by such a person are not talked about much. So much to free speech ... In my books its not the absence of critical views that impress me about an organisation of any sort, but the way its dealt with.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Photo

In the Article, a 50 years old photo of Daisaku Ikeda appears in black and white. I could not trace up the editor who put that photo as I find it irrelevant to the Article's title: Soka Gakkai. Ikeda did not originate the Soka Gakkai, neither he is now a president. A proper relevance would be Josei Toda's photo. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't just about Sōka Gakkai but also the SGI as well, so it is completely relevant. The photo is in the section which details information specifically relating to the SGI, the International organisation to which he is the founding and current President. Though if you or anyone else can find a more recent photo of him that would be better. I've tried looking online but I can't find anything which conforms to the guidelines about copyright and uploading photos.