Jump to content

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


More Legitimately Speaking

By Jim Celer 67.54.190.87 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) A bit of suggestion, I intend of moving some parts of SGI main history article in regards to Daisaku Ikeda personal history to this main article about him.I would like some views please. TY.Gammadion 18:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The revised article is much better, in my opinion. The only thing that I would still like to see is something a little more biographical. Obviously he has had a professional life that is far reaching - a little bit about who he is, when was he born, where/how did he grow up, what set him on the path that he has taken, etc., seems fitting. I know he was greatly affected by WWII and that that and his association with Josei Toda and Soka Gakkai are the forces that have driven him to work for peace, and for the abolishment of nuclear weapns world wide. I think it is fascinating, but I am not sure what the direction or aims of Wikipedia are in presenting people - is it to be biographical or more a curriculum vitae type of thing...? - KPMP --68.44.192.165 01:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There was a pretty good article by Dr. Ikeda published in English in the Japan Times today, called Arduous Democracy. It explains how WWII effected him - he was 17 in 1945 - and how it motivated him to work for peace. - R.--68.45.57.193 22:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
R, I believe you should chill on the linkage thingie, I know you had been working hard defending Daisaku Ikeda and SGI. I would rather that you read his biography on the SGI-USA website(it's on the main article) for further information about his past. Ikeda used to work as an apprentice printer under Josei Toda and under low pay or no pay at times after WWII.(Understood from Human Revolution, Ikeda's biographical fiction) Before Ikeda became the third SG president, he was the SG YMD leader. That's all I can dig up for now.Gammadion 10:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Ikeda needs no defense, and certainly not from little ol' me. But it appears that you (or whoever is authoring this entry) is unaware of anything authoritative or reliable to draw from in putting this entry together. The link above provides a good source for info that would satisfy the need for biographical coverage in the article. So, since research is my thing, I thought I'd help you out. And links, by the way, can be very effective way of easily pointing one towards reliable (and less than reliable, unfortunately) sources. If they weren't wanted, I guess there wouldn't be a means of entering them into the discussion. So here are a few more you must have missed.
"Daisaku Ikeda was born in Tokyo on January 2, 1928. As a teenager during World War II, Mr. Ikeda experienced the horrors of war through the death and devastation around him, including the death of his eldest brother on the Burmese front. He developed a deep-rooted abhorrence to war and a respect for those who had undergone persecution by the state for their anti-war beliefs but had not compromised their convictions. The young Daisaku's life reached a dramatic turning point when,in August 1947, at age 19, he met Josei Toda at a Soka Gakkai discussion meeting. who would become his mentor and play a decisive role in shaping the course of his life." SOURCE:http://www.gandhikinginstitute.org/ikeda_bio.htm
"President Ikeda was born on January 2 in 1928 in the Ota area of Tokyo which faces Tokyo Bay. His family’s business produced an edible form of seaweed. He lived through the Pacific War as a teenager and the loss and grief that he experienced affected him profoundly. He lost his eldest brother, who died on a battlefield, and he watched his mother mourn her beloved son. During these very personal experiences, Ikeda became aware of the senseless horror and stupidity of war, and he deepened his determination to work for world peace and the happiness of humanity. source:http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/youth-outreach/peace-heroes/ikeda-daisaku.htm"
"He is widely credited in China for taking the initiative to open negotiations that resulted in the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Japan in 1972. He has also published more than 150 works in several languages in an effort to promote peace and international understanding.
Ikeda's basic message is that an "inner-motivated reformation" within each individual - rather than societal, economic or structural reforms - is what will bring about the sure and lasting establishment of a peaceful and compassionate society. His comprehensive writings, speeches, published dialogues and religious activities have been conducted with an eye toward promoting the view that individuals have within themselves the power and potential to make a real and positive difference in the world. source:http://www.paulingexhibit.org/pr03/ikeda.html"
"So many of the young men of my generation were incited by the militarist government to march proudly into battle and give their lives. The families left behind were praised for their sacrifices to protect the home front and as "military mothers" -- a term deemed to carry high honor. But, in reality, what a devastating tumult of pain, grief and misery swirled in the depths of their hearts! A mother's love, a mother's wisdom, is too great to be fooled by such empty phrases as "for the sake of the nation."
...Women are, in my view, natural peacemakers. As givers and nurturers of life, through their focus on human relationships and their engagement with the demanding work of raising children and protecting family life, they develop a deep sense of empathy that cuts through to underlying human realities....Surely no era can rival the 20th century in the number of mothers throughout the world forced to shed bitter tears of pain and sorrow. Women and mothers are the greatest victims of war -- wars started virtually without exception by men...."
Oy vay! The job of a librarian is never done... -Ruby--151.198.23.150 05:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Whether or not the accusations are true, I think it deserves a mention that there are so many accusations. Perhaps address why such accusations came up, and the evidence for and against, but to not mention them at all is clearly POV. The majority of Japanese fear Ikeda and SG, I think that merits a mention beyond "he is a controversial figure but all accusations have proven false." Tallasse 13:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard that the "majority of Japanese fear Ikeda and SG." Where did you find that? If that is so, then it ought to be part of the article, but it needs to be cited.--141.150.76.224 09:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, I found that by living in Japan and talking to Japanese people about religion. There is a clear general consensus that Soka Gakkai is 'scary.' Every year the Japanese Religion class at Kansai Gaidai does interviews with Japanese families on religious beliefs, compiling hundreds of views from very diverse communities. Questions are asked about the families' own religious background, about views on new religions, and on religious syncretism.
Two of the questions asked are What is your opinion of Soka Gakkai? and What is your opinion of Ikeda Daisaku? The responses to those are uncannily similar. Soka Gakkai is "scary," and Ikeda Daisaku is "scary." The exact word used almost every time is "こわい." Apart from the few Soka Gakkai members interviewed, I have only seen one instance of someone supporting SG, and that was for cleaning up parks, and they still had a negative opinion of Ikeda.
Whether or not SG or Ikeda are good or bad is immaterial to the fact that they are viewed in a negative light in this country. It's definitely worth mentioning, not perjoratively, but as something that simply is. I don't know if Prof. Kenney is planning to publish the research, but if not I will ask her if I can have the complete statistics. In any case, I personally think it's an unfair bias generated by the media, but it is there. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, and it definitely slants the article.
-- Tallasse 02:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, unfortunately, your personal discussions "living in Japan and talking to Japanese people about religion," and unpublished "research" do not constitute a reputable or credible source. There are many other Japanese people that would disagree, and many other published and unpublished researchers and writers who would say differently. All I am saying to you is that if you want to include a position, you need to source it. And, to be fair and unbiassed, you need also to source and cite those credible sources who do not consider Ikeda to be "scary."
I researched "Professor Kenney" (her full name is Elizabeth J Kenney) but I didn't come across anything published on the subject of SGI or Ikeda, though I did find some scholarly articles on Japanese funeral rites. In the process, however, I did find a few reputable sources that discuss this subject and can be cited. For example, read the books "A Time to Chant: The Soka Gakkai Buddhists in Britain" by Bryan Wilson and Karel Dobbelaere, published by Oxford University Press or "Buddhism in America" by Richard Seager published by Columbia University Press.
Finally, you might also want to check out the video Embattled Buddhists, which also addresses the controversy. As an overview of the religion and the controversy in Japan, it was very interesting and informative. Although it was produced by an independent company, the video is available to be viewed at the SGI website -- a point against it in terms of usefulness as a source, perhaps, but enlightening (no pun intended) nonetheless. Ruby --138.89.173.180 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)----
So your argument is, surveys and polls are not valid sources? I'm sure we have a big enough sample to reduce the error to a few percentage points. Or should I restructure my statement to say that Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda are only unpopular in the Kansai region? Or finally, are you saying that only people with credentials are allowed to contribute information? Isn't that the antithesis of Wikipedia? I guess I will wait until the info is published in order to add it to the article, as to not interfere with the No Original Research policy.
No, my argument is that raw data that has not been published in any format that is available for the public to review is not research. It is simply data. You are the one who wanted to point out so called "research." All I am saying is call it what it is, and state it plainly. At this point it is nothing more than raw data, and that just doesn't cut it as "research." All we have is your word (who ARE you anyway?) that you saw some "polls and surveys" All I am asaking is that you produce them. Obviously you can't, or I imagine you would.
In any case, I'm sorry, whether or not you like it, Ikeda's unpopular. Even Soka Gakkai members in Japan acknowledge that. No matter how much semantic BS you try and throw out there, this is just the way it is. Japanese are uneasy with what they see as Soka Gakkai's involvement with politics. Here's a source for you, the man himself, Daisaku Ikeda (Mainichi Shimbun Interview with SGI President) who says, "Public opinion tends to equate Soka Gakkai with the Komeito party." Japanese people are very wary of religious involvement in politics, from State Shinto in WW2, and even more so since the AUM Shinrikyo attacks in 1995.
(BTW, thanks for the link above. It explains quite clearly and succinctly Dr. Ikeda's position with regard to religion and politics, specifically SGI and Komeiti. Taken in full it says:
"Ikeda: Public opinion tends to equate Soka Gakkai with the Komeito party. Komeito, however, is in coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). This in turn may mislead the general public to consider that Soka Gakkai is somehow tied to the LDP. We consider it inaccurate and most regrettable to be thought of in that way. If that view were to persist unchallenged, we would be rebuked by concerned members, who might become estranged from the organization. In order to respond to the needs and concerns of the members, I felt it was important to clarify again the independent identity of the Soka Gakkai, and I started speaking out more frequently in public. In other words, the goal of our religious practice is not to provide electoral support to the Komeito. The essence of religion is found in spiritual solidarity among people. The time for political factionalism is long past. It will only lead to a dead end. Priority should and must always be placed on people. We are advancing a religious movement that is by the people, for the sake of the people. from Daisaku Ikeda (Mainichi Shimbun Interview with SGI President)
It seems a perfectly reasonalble and fair way to adress the "controversy" would be to introduce the man's position in the article. You may also enter in substantiated, authoritative counter positions, but to enter in only one side, without even providing any kind of reliable or authoritative sources other than your personal experience is not neutral, or frankly, its not reliable information, and it weakens and undermines the value of Wikipedia in general.) - R--138.89.141.207 23:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The question isn't whether I like him -- or whether YOU like him, for that matter. The point is if you are going to write something in an encyclopdic source, you do need to follow some conventions. Wikipedia is revolutionary - but its not stupid. Once the quality of its reports become less than reliable, its value is lost. I am sure if you read Wikipedia's statements about writing good articles, you will find that they are indeed looking for impeccable writing and credible and reliable sources.
If you had read what I wrote, I did not suggest that there was no controversy. There most certainly is. But saying "people think he is scary" is just not enough. I pointed you to several sources that DO address the controversy straightforwardly. Instead of relying solely on the vague unpublished work of your professor friend, there are actual, published, authoritative sources you could refer to -- on both sides of the issue. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Honestly, your take on the controversy is somewhat ridiculous. I'm not smugly commenting from the other side of the planet, I live in the country. I come into contact with the members of the group every day. There's a Seikyo Shinbun office not 2 blocks from here. I don't need books and videos authored by foreigners about SGI in the US or Britain to determine whether or not Daisaku Ikeda is controversial in Japan. I can take half a minute to stop by the office or visit the neighbors, or even my SG friends, and ask, 'hey, what do you think about Ikeda?' I don't need sources to back up the fact the sky is blue.
Honestly you are denser than a log. And you are smug. To suggest that just because you live in a country, and speak to a lot of people there, that you have a full picture of anything. (That's like Hey, this Japanese girl who lives in the middle of Kansas, right alongside the Americans, and they all find George Bush to be a really great leader and a real smart man. She talks to lots of Americans and this is what they tell her, so she's going to put that in the Japanese article about George Bush (or whomever). What does she need sources for? They told her, so it must be true, and besides she lives there! So there!)
I have not said that what you say is untrue - I have said that it needs to be presented in a more neutral way, citing sources that can be tracked and that others can refer to if they want to learn more for themselves. And if you don't like the ones I suggested, then find your own! But for Pete's sake! Find them and site them already!! Because unless you have written a book on the subject that you haven't told us about, you and your personal experiences do not fit that criteria.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda. I know great people who are SG members, and I know great people who think SG is a cult that secretly runs my university.
Yeah and some of your best friends are black, too, right?
I simply came here to learn more, and instead of learning a factual account about the leader of SGI, I found a whitewash, a glowing advertisement for a controversial figure. It's a perfect example of the potential for failure in a collaborative system, and I'm sorry that personal feelings are being valued over fact. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your reasons for your vociferous defense. Is it because you want to protect him, or is it because you honestly believe he's not controversial? - Tallasse 11:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
(First mistake: looking to Wikipedia for "facts." I WISH you could! As a librarian, that would be a DREAM! But, unfortunately, and as I have been trying to argue, if the contributors aren't going to be more selective in the sources they use, and if they aren't going to be more responsibile about what they write, and how they write it, if they aren't willing to put aside their own agendas, or at least try to fairly present both or all sides, then you will not FIND facts in Wikipedia.
Second mistake: Assuming that because your bias is not substantiated by what you found here, that then what you have read, must be wrong. Perhaps you found a "glowing whitewash" becasue there is actually more truth to his goodwill and success than there is to the so called "controversy." YOu didn't find support for your position, because there isn't anything reliable or authoritative out there. The "controversy" around Ikeda is akin to the "controversy" around Princess Di, Michael Jackson, "who killed Kenedy", or any other person who seems to make the tabloids buzz gives people something to talk about, and ultimately, makes them money.
If you notice, the "controversy" reported in Japanese "news" comes from their equivalent of "The Inquirer", "Star", and that propogandist rag that passes for a newspaper, the "New York Post." There IS a controversy - but if you want to talk about it, use Japanese sources that are at least of the caliber of, say the NYT, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc. Even they have their agendas - but at least TRY to be responsible.
If you really want to find facts, go to the source, and go to other reliable "outside" sources, such as have been suggested here and elsewhere - quick example - "Buddhism in America" and look therein. But of ocurse, you have to at least be willing to have an open mind and check your biases at the front page.) -R --138.89.141.207 23:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Once again, you miss, and yet, in some really perverse way, make my point. The point you make correctly is that whenever a report is not substantiated by credible and reliable sources, that address the various aspects of a subject in a fair and unbiassed way, you end up with a resource that is basically useless. That is my fear for Wikipedia - it is an amazing experiement - but there are just too many people out there who don't have a clue about what they are doing. Case in point -- why in the world would someone use Wikipedia as a source for finding out any real information about anything? There are plenty of other resources, established, authoritative, credible, that can give you the answers you seek. Go to your library, man. Ask a librarian to help you.
The point you miss is that I am not defending Ikeda - I am defending good research. - Ruby (the Librarian) --138.89.183.71 07:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Besides, he needs no defense. - KPMP


A personality cult *has* grown up around Ikeda in the form of his religious corporation known as SGI or Soka Gakkai, and this is well documented in the press. I have noticed that when others try to add this fact to this profile, someone comes along to remove it. I think it's only fair to state that while there are many who adore Ikeda, there are many who see him as a cult leader.

http://freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/s/soka/


Who is Steve Hassan? What criteria are we to use when deciding what sources to cite? The author of the above website offers the following disclaimer of his own page: 

 "Copyright © 2001-2005 Freedom of Mind Resource Center, Inc. 
 Freedomofmind.com fully supports religious freedom and the 
 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fact 
 that a person’s name or group appears on our website does not 
 necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult. They 
 appear because we have received inquiries and have established a 
 file on the group. The Freedom of Mind Resource Center Inc. was 
 established by cult expert Steve Hassan'

That doesn't seem to lend credibility to him or his views. As a .com site, his purpose is commercial, not informational per se. Shouldn't we be using higher standards in selecting our sources? Especially as Wikipedia's presence is so strong. Don't we contributors have a responsibility to use only the most credible, reliable, authoritative sources? Isn't it part of our responsibility to help sort through this kind of stuff? I am a librarian and I teach high school students how to evaluate their inormation sources. This one does not stand up. Here's a quick review for anyone interested >Evaluating Resources >Kathy Shrock's Guide to Website Evaluation >THinking Critically About... Just a thought - Ruby--138.89.144.194 00:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


--Goettel 01:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The allegations of rape on the above site are very serious:Did the case go to court? Andycjp 8/5/04

Good question. I do not know. The following link has many news reports from the New York Times. I will look for more info. http://www.sokacult.com/JealousLies.html --Goettel 06:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


Yes, the case had its day. See below. Althought there are others, this is one I found that seemed to have an independent voice AND meet many (though not all) of my criteria for evaluating info: Human Rights Without Frontiers

Daisaku Ikeda and Seikyo Shimbun

Daisaku Ikeda doesn't own the Seikyo Shimbun newspaper. It Soka Gakkai that owns it. Distribution is between 5 and 6 million.

About the rape: "The Tokyo District Court dismissed the allegations in May 2000 as "an abuse of the right of action." The judge found "no factual evidence" to support their allegations and stated that their lawsuit was "entirely against the principle of good faith."

I don't know how to get to the actual court documents, but there is unofficial summary and translation of the court judgment at http://www.sokagakkai.info/html3/viewpoint3/record3/rec08_nobu_case.html

And Soka Gakkai's official answer to some of other accusations at http://www.sokagakkai.info/html3/viewpoint3/record3/record_index3f.html

---

I question the use of the terms "personality cult" and "cult" altogether. Nothing stated in the article, or in the discussion seem to fit even Wikipedia's entry on this topic, which defines the term as follows: "A Cult of Personality differs from charismatic authority in that it has a negative connotation by definition, and is thus a pejorative term. It also differs from general hero worship in that it is specifically built around political leaders."

(By the way, it seems that a good portion of the Wikipedia article on "cult of personality" seems to have been lifted from the site InovoyagerIs that appropriate? )

In addition, according to Infopedia, "A cult of personality is a generally derogative term to criticize the worship of a single leader". Although Dr. Ikeda seems to be quite popular among a large population of people, and though he has many accomplishments, (like any good leader, I would think) is there any evidence that anyone "worships" him or that he himself seeks such adulation? Isn't it POV to apply terms that are "derogatory" "criticisms" to descriptions of people or organizations as if they are factual, without substantiation? I haven't really seen anything that really substantiates the claim...

Also, according to dictionary.com, the definition of the word "cult" has not been shown to be accurate either. Can examples be provided? The definition is: "1.A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 2. The followers of such a religion or sect. 3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 6. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. The object of such devotion. 7. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. "

It's just not clear to me that the application of these terms to Dr. Ikeda are well founded. Especially since Wikipedia's definitions of the two terms are themselves under dispute. It would seem innappropriate that a disputed term be used in reference to anyone in Wikipedia.

Not to mention, it raises some real issues, say for high school students doing research on the topic, when the first result in a Google or dictionary.com's encyclopedia site search are references to Wikipedia's definitions.

Perhaps the terms should not be applied to Dr, Ikeda, SGI, or anyone else, for that matter, until the definitions themselves are at least agreed upon. Just a thought...Ruby--68.45.57.193 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC) --68.45.57.193 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore the websites that are just seeking to destroy the credibility of Mr. Ikeda

If you happen to bounce upon a site that speaks ill of Mr. Ikeda, please ignore it. Those people have absolutely nothing to do and are wasting their time. They fabricate stories and tell lies just to mislead people, and I hope you will instead go to the following site: Soka Gakkai International

Mr. Ikeda is an recipient of more than 150 honorary degrees and citizenships, and has held dialogs with many important figures around the world. Every year, he sends his proposals for peace and sustainability to the United Nations. Like all people through peace, culture, and education, Mr. Ikeda has great hopes for the future of humanity. For more information please visit www.sgi.org

Money can do a lot.LordofHavoc 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

-- 13:43, 9 Sep 2004 User:193.166.21.100

I feel it is sad that the people who seek to defend this man almost never give their names. -- User:Andycjp 29th March 2005

--- 23:30, 30 October 2005

I have no personal or dogmatic quarrel with Mr. Ikeda or his successors, however in light of evasive obsfucations engaged in by SGI at the direction of Mr. Ikeda and his successors there is grounds for a reasoned debate, but not WikiGraffiti. My experiences with and observations of SGI are that like many other religious orders, the adherents are sincerely interested in their causes and beliefs. However, if questioned "Is SGI a religion / faith" the standard was to vehemently deny that, and state that SGI was a non-denominational inter-faith NGO established for world peace. Again, I feel that to be an honorable effort. However, the evidence clearly shows that SGI is a unification Buddhist denomination with lay orders, doctrine, ministries, dogmas, and ordinances, contrary to their assertations of non-religious activities. The controversies surrounding Mr. Ikeda specificly, and SGI in particular, are similar to arguments made about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. The arguements lie at the evasiveness regarding what Mr. Ikeda and SGI's intents and pretenses are, not their activities or faith. NotRegisteredUser


Uh...What's that?
No, serionsly - "evasive obsfucations engaged in by SGI at the direction of Mr. Ikeda and his successors?" You are making an accusation. Grounds? Sources? Plain english?
Publications made by the Japanese home branch of SGI, made available to me several years ago by active regional leaders of SGI.
Sources please? That's book title or journal name/article title, author, publisher, year/edition, pages, and/or url... The point of the request is so that others may seek out the information for their own perusal and reflection.
And I appreciate that you are trying to assume a position of neutrality, but "if questioned "Is SGI a religion / faith" the standard was to vehemently deny that, and state that SGI was a non-denominational inter-faith NGO established for world peace. "
Again: where? When? Who?
Publically available proselyting materials published by SGI at their Takayama headquarters.
Again: Sources? By that I mean, book title or journal name/article title, author, publisher, year/edition, pages, and/or url... The point of the request is so that others may seek out the information for their own perusal and reflection. (You're not trying to evasivily obfuscate the point, are you...?Hmmm?)
That said, forget that. The real point is does it matter? Why can't it be both? What is the necessity to make it fit into One or The Other? Especially, when it seems that your point is that "if it fits the notion (of religion) then it is bad, but if it doens't fit, then it is also bad". So why even bother? Nonetheless, I perservere....
"However, the evidence clearly shows that SGI is a unification Buddhist denomination with lay orders, doctrine, ministries, dogmas, and ordinances, contrary to their assertations of non-religious activities." "
And once more...What evidence? Sources? Citations?
ibid
I ibid your ibid and raise you one. It seems you are trying to lay Judeo-Christian terminology atop of something that is not Judeo-Christian. You can find parallels in some forms of Buddhism, wherein there are temples, priests, monks, and Buddha is comparable to a deity and is worshipped, and Bodhissatvas and other Buddhas are comparable to saints and prophets...But Nichiren Buddhism as practiced by SGI really

doesn't quite fit that mold. In some respects, yes it does But in others, not at all. (But, again, I ask - why must it fit in the first place? And why must its followers and Ikeda say "It fits!" Just to make YOU feel more comfortable? To make you feel "Right?" At any rate, I think that is causing a lot of confusion.

"The controversies surrounding Mr. Ikeda specificly, and SGI in particular, are similar to arguments made about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology."" Here, you are accusing two organisations, and presenting them as if they were similar. What evidence can you offer to support such a statement?
That was not accusatory to either, it was simply explanatory to illustrate the area of debate. The issue of debate is "Is X a religion?"
Ok, so you weren't accusing. Can you tell me what are you trying to suggest when you say that "similar arguments are made about L Ron Hubbard?" First, what are the specific arguments you are referring to, and second, what does it mean, in your mind, if the same kind of argument is applied to both? Also, See below...
And finally "The arguements lie at the evasiveness regarding what Mr. Ikeda and SGI's intents and pretenses are, not their activities or faith." You are accusing two organisations, but give evidence, sources, grounds, for either position. ." You are accusing Dr. Ikeda of evasiveness - under what grounds? What can you source that substantiates your claim?
If SGI is a religion, fine. If not, fine. The debate exists because SGI, and it's head Dr. Ikeda have not been forthcoming.
From the SGI website, and in his words:
"In general, Buddhism is viewed as a static religion, epitomized by the image of a meditating or sitting Buddha, but the true image is one of a dynamic, walking Buddhist, an active Buddhist. The true Buddhist is a stranger to rest, continuously taking action to lead people to happiness and make them free."-Daisaku Ikeda
That said, perhaps the real culprit may just be confusion around the cultural and semantic nuances in the definition, interpretation and/or translation of the word "relgion." Such confusion is a consequence of the sometimes inexact and imprecise nature of language. As such, it isn't fair to say that "this debate exists because SGI, and it's head Dr. Ikeda have not been forthcoming."
Perhaps it would help to know what you mean by "religion." Acording to Wikipedia's entry on the term, religion has had many meanings, but:
"What is clear about the word "religion" is that the religious connotations (in the sense of gods, morality, afterlife, etc.) were not a part of the term's Latin precursors."
And then ponder this: I have already pointed out what SGI says of itself. In addition, the BBC offers a concise definition of Buddhism, under its subject heading for religion:
"Buddhism is a tradition that focuses on personal spiritual development. Buddhists strive for a deep insight into the true nature of life and do not worship gods or deities."
So, the point is, that if one defines "religion" by its "worship of gods and deities," etc., then, in most respects, Buddhism is more of a philosophy, and following, so is Nichiren Buddhism. But if one defines a religion as "the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe", then, in most respects, Buddhism can be called a religion, and following, so can Nichiren Buddhism. Ultimately, what matters most is not whether you call it a religion or philosophy or Joe - whatever. It is what it is, and it seems to work for a lot of people.
On the other hand, if you read what SGI says of itself, I quote "Soka Gakkai International (SGI)-USA is an American Buddhist association that promotes world peace and individual happiness based on the teachings of the Nichiren school of Mahayana Buddhism. Our members reflect a cross section of our diverse American society,

representing a broad range of ethnic and social backgrounds" Source: www.sgi-usa.org.

And I'm saying that you have to dig to find that information in literature in Japan, and when questioned about it, the practice is to evade and obscure that as a general practice by the members. Nichiren Buddhism is a religious faith in the sociological sense as much as Christianity or Islam, why do SGI members have such a lack of faith/confidence in what they adhere to?
OK, so, then this whole debate is really about whether it is religion as defined in Japan? If that is what you are saying, then I think that pretty much supports my argument that the problem is really more about semantics and culture. I think that religion means something very different in a non Judeo-Christian society than what it means to us. If you try to apply the same word to something which has a culturally different meaning, you can end up with confusion. To a person who is not of the culture, I suppose that confusion could be interpreted to be an attempt to be "evasive." But that is a judgement statement, which really reflects more about the internal viewpoint of the perceiver.
As for digging - that is why I keep asking for citations and sources - so that, thanks to you, no one will have to dig again!!
As for your perception that SGI members have a "lack of faith or confidence in what they adhere to," I would say that that is your perception. And?
Perhaps what you pervceive to be "confusion", "evasion", "not forthcoming," etc., is simply the honest attempt of others to explain the nuances of this particular relgion (or philosophy - your choice!). There is nothing evasive about exploring the nuance of a thing. Unless, of course, the hearer is hearing the discussion through a veil of his or her own internal judgements. Which is fine - everybody does. Just be fair and acknowledge it.
And from www.sgi.org, in the definition of SGI it says:
"For SGI members, Buddhism is a practical philosophy of individual empowerment and inner transformation that enables people to develop themselves and take responsibility for their lives ".
Based on, if you go back and read the fine print, adherence to Buddhistic dogmatic principles, and faith in their spiritual applicability, is as you said the core principles. In my book that constitues a religion. So stand up and be proud of yourself, and don't sulk around as you do.
So in your mind, a religion is "dogmatic principles" and "faith in their spriritual applicability". That is helpful. So, then now can you tell me: what are the "dogmatic principles" you are referring to, and what do you mean by "faith in their spiritual applicability?" And then, at least we'll have common ground for debate.
As for "standing up" I think that is exactly what people are doing when they refuse to be bullied into accepting a definition of their faith, just because another person thinks their own point of view is more valid...
As for "sulking" I can really only repeat, that your judgements say much more about you than they do about the people you are judging. Or perhaps I am wrong and you happen to know some sulking Buddhists? I am afraid I have not had the questionable pleasure of meeting any...
However, I have met a few self-righteous, paranoid, judgemental, egotistical, arrogant, brooding, pseudo-intellectual, confused, ignorant, and mean spirited people of No, or Other, faiths...By contrast, the least I could say is that Nichiren Buddhists tend to be far more enjoyable people.
"As lay believers and "engaged Buddhists," SGI members strive in their everyday lives to develop the ability to live with confidence, to create value in any circumstances and to contribute to the well-being of friends, family and community. The promotion of peace, culture and education is central to SGI's activities."
Via Buddistic vows, faith, dogmatic principles, rituals, and ecclesiastical orders.
So this is more of what you mean by the word "religion"....Unless you are talking about Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, which DOES have this kind of structure....but that is a very different animal from Nichiren Buddhism as practiced by SGI...
Of course, that said, it must also be re-emphasized that the whole question is really moot -- what does it matter? In the grand scheme isn't it more imporatant to know what Ikeda and SGI stand for? Are the practioners getting from it what they expect? Are THEY satisfied? Do THEY condsider it their religion or their philosophy or their practice or just their way of life?
And so, getting back to the beginning, the point I was trying to make was that it is important to document your sources, so that others may have the benefit of seeing for themselves and making up their own minds. You, I trust, would understand and agree that no one should follow another blindly and unquestioningly. - R--70.111.52.102 05:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
According to these statements, there is no "vehement" denial of their religions underpinnings. It seems pretty clear where they stand. Perhaps you misunderstood some one, or they did not explain themselves well - or maybe they misunderstood SGI. OR maybe you are right in some way - but unless you back up your opinions with facts and examples from reputable sources, it's just your opionion.
User:NotRegisteredUser
I agree, a debate is absolutely worthwhile - but while most debates do have at their core the debater's opinion, it is customary - and necessary, ultimately - that the debaters have reputable sources to cite to back up their claims. Can you just cite some sources for your assertions so that we can examine them for ourselves? - R --68.45.57.193 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the level of vitriol spewing forth from the keyboards of some visitors, I am not surprised that people won't sign! Nonethelss, I would suggest to one and all that the best way to determine the validity of any of these claims - good or bad - is to visit the sites, SGI USA, or SGI, get to know someone who practices, and read something -- try The Buddha in Daily Life by Robert Causton (if you can find a copy - it is currently out of print), or The Buddha in your Mirror by By Hochswender, Martin & Moreno ISBN 0-9674697-1-6, available at Barnes' and Noble and other fine book stores near you --151.198.99.71 22:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Typical cult behaviour

Trying to silence the voices of dissent is typical behaviour of brainwashed cultists. It is really very unpleasant to witness.

Yeah. Your not kidding! Those Anti-SGI Cultists will stop at nothing to keep those free thinkin', peace lovin,' 10 hour toso chantin' SGI Nichiren Buddhists quiet! Really sad...


Ikeda is a controversial figure, but this article reads like an autobiography of L. Ron Hubbard.

And your point is....

Do we really need to know about every award he ever received? The Rumanian ex-dictatur Ceausescu and his wife also had some impressive titles. They were still put up against a wall and shot. (That's something you don't see often enough.) -- 04:04, 15 Apr 2005 User:62.107.63.48


Really. Daisaku Ikeda and his wife can hardly be compared to a communist dictator.--151.198.99.71 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Name one thing President Ikeda has been accused of that has been proven...I dare you. --- 20:32, 27 May 2005 User:Butsushin And don't forget to cite any sources you have. --- 03:59, 13 July 2005 User:Butsushin

The reason people think Sokka Gakkai is a cult-

Sokka Gakkai members will always defend ANYTHING the organization, it's leader and their political party does. --- 05:26, 15 July 2005 User:64.71.189.133 What sort of religious organization can afford to send a million dollars to a dump? --- 05:36, 15 July 2005 User:64.71.189.133

Rather like Republicans, I'd say...Maybe they are a cult too! Yee Gads! Now THAT is scary!- R.

OK, ok, that is just my opionion - my Republican Buddhist friends won't leave me alone! Actually there are a lot of Republicans who practice this Buddhism, too - and military people, and war supporters (believe it or not) and soccer moms even. A LOTof those, actually. (But then, again, this IS an amazing practice!!) It is, after all, a very "pull yourself up by your own boostraps" kind of belief system. Many of us, Republican and Democrats alike just also happen to believe that while you are doing so, you should refrain from using someone else's backside to keep you anchored. And that if you do happen to have used someones backside to help you out, then once you have got your boots on, you shouldn't just to walk all over them with them. Rather, it would be much better karma, and is, (believe it or not) also a good thing (good karma, onemight say) to also help that person, (or someone else,) to at least get a pair of boots of their own. And, heck, if they need some help getting them on, well hey, even if you pulled your own on all by yourself, without anyone's help at all, that doesn't mean you can't also make it a little easier fot the next guy. And especially so, if someone DID happen to loan you his/her back in the first place. The "middle way," "karma" "interrelatedness of all life" : brothers keeper," "do unto others..." Its all pretty much the same. We just happen to actually work at living it. - R.

Excuse me, but that money was actually hidden by the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood, not the Soka Gakkai.--gab 00:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is not necessarily true. I'm an SGI member myself although I could care less for Mr. Ikeda. I'm a member because of the practice, not the people. Personally I see Ikeda as being a money-hungry arrogant tyrant who cares more about his own agenda than that of the SGI. Being a member of SGI-USA I look up to my leaders here, in America, not Japan. Say what you want about Mr. Ikeda. This is one SGI member who will not be offended, promise. :) --- 22:07, 28 July 2005 User:24.215.92.110


The easiest way to determine the validity of any of this is to visit the site, get to know someone who practices, and see for yourself. SGI International andSGI-USA. 12 mllion people seem to agree that SGI and Nichiren buddhism works for them. Are they all just mistaken or brainwashed? 151.198.99.71 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)--151.198.99.71 22:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I Find it Funny that the SGI Member did not sign his name, I also find it hard to understand the fact that he repects his leaders, who in turn repect President Ikeda yet he beleives him to be a Tyrannt. Why would his Respected leaders rescept a tyrannt. He is clearly missing the whole point.- Iravan September 28 2005


--- I find it funny that you find it so funny! "Given the level of vitriol spewing forth from the keyboards of some visitors, I am not surprised that people won't sign!"

In my reading of this article, the dispute seems unfounded - everything that is stated is biographical, and can be proven time and again, by more than one outside source. In addition, the article does address some of the less popular sentiment. So I don't understand where there is a bias. Unless one has already made up ones mind in spite of a wealth of evidence to the contrary -- but then, of course, that would be biassed and POV...

It seems that you may have had bad experiences, and if so, it would be helpful if you would share them, for the sake of other people's well being. At this point, there are over 12 million people who seem to feel that Daisaku Ikeda comes by his accolades and accomplishments quite honestly. They can't all be wrong, can they?

Perhaps it might be worth the effort to get to know someone who practices, and maybe read something.

Try these: 

 *"The Buddha in Your Mirror," 
 *"Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age" or 
 *"The Toynbee-Ikeda Dialogue: Man Himself Must Choose 
      by Arnold Toynbee and, Daisaku Ikeda.

There are also some interesting articles of note: 

 *"Born in the USA: Racial Diversity in Soka Gakkai International an excellent and very intriuing article in Tricycle magazine from it's 50th issue, April 2004. Probably available at your local public library 
  *Or perhaps this bok might be helpul "Soka Gakkai: From Lay Movement to Religion," 
      by Karel Dobbelaere

There's also: 

   *"The Cultural Significance of New Religious Movements: The Case of Soka Gakkai. 
      By:  Dawson, Lorne L.. Sociology of Religion, Fall2001, Vol. 62 Issue 3, p337-364, 
       28p
   * and NPR's All Things Considered 
     Profile: Practice of Soka Gakkai in the US By: MICHELE NORRIS. All Things Considered (NPR), 05/12/2004

I wish you well. - Ruby --68.45.57.193 03:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Rape charge

The rape charge was thrown out when it was found that the woman had been lying about President Ikeda's whereabouts. It was also found by the judge that the woman, Nobuko Nobuhira and her husband Junko had attempted to extort money from President Ikeda, and when the attempt failed, she charged rape. See http://www.apublicbetrayed.com/case_studies/case_study3.htm, under the subheading "False Accusation." It also includes the court's summation of the case.

-gtdanyelz-gab 00:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


This is correct. In fact, there seem to be many accusations, but no convictions. And there are many reprints of the courts' summation and decision on this case, as well as those on several other accusations that have been lodged against Dr. Ikeda and the SGI. For example, here is a summary posted by an organization that appears, on the surface, at least, to be an impartial outside analyst:

From: Human Rights Without Frontiers ,Ave. Winston Churchill 11 / 33 – 1180 Brussels – Belgium – Phone: + 32 2 345 61 45 – Fax: +32 2 343 74 91 – Email address: info@hrwf.net

  • "There is no evidence that Honorary President Ikeda committed rape. Nobuko Nobuhira, a former member of Soka Gakkai, brought a lawsuit, alleging that he raped her. She lost because the statute of limitations had run out (without determining whether he committed a rape). Yet, in the lawsuit brought by her husband, the court dismissed the case because he abused a right to access to the court by not bringing sufficient evidence of rape and continually altering the date and circumstances of the alleged incidents. The court determined that Ikeda did not commit a rape. Additionally, Soka Gakkai denies any other rape allegation.

and...

  • "Soka Gakkai promotes democracy, the respect of human rights and of the child’s rights, non-discrimination, ecology, nuclear disarmement. This role has been recognized by the United Nations. In 1981, Soka Gakkai became a UNHCR-recognized NGO and in 1983, it was also registered with the ECOSOC. Soka Gakkai sponsors artistic

events, concerts, theatre performances, exhibitions, etc."--68.45.57.193 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the [http://http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/UN section on NGOs. I searched "Soka Gakai" to find it, in case the link doesn't connect. --68.45.57.193 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a nightmare to read idependently of the views. Daisaku Ikeda is infact controverse, if he wasn't htere wouldn't be a neutrality dispute. But even if there is a dispute, the article should be at least readble. If mr.Ikeda has that many published books there should be a speciall section for it, a bibliography or whatever just for the sake of design and respect for wikipedia standards.

If we look at other articles we don't have this entangled pasta of actions mixed up with published conversations with assorted figures and worst with different design format.

I don't know if he his a respectable man or a manipulative creature for a fact, and this is not for wikipedia to expose. I'm not pro-Soka Gakkai I must say, but I got my opinion through meeting people of the organization, going to their tupperware like reunions and reading all the babble that they put out, much later did I find criticism that went along with what I felt. I feel that wikipedia, deserves better than this because it is a wonderfull community and it's for all of us, inspite of all nonsense of creed, faith, political whatever, favorite chainsaw massacre film.

I particulary feel an enormous despise for this figure, and I would not be the best person to shape this up, but I will try if no one will.

--P- 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your feelings are obvious, unfortunately. But controversial does not mean "cult." And besides that, it is possible to cover controversial topics, withouth the article itself becoming controversial. It's about neutrality and balance, exploring a thing without judging it, or supporting it.

That said, I still believe it would be more helpul to know why you you have such strong feelings. I mean "enormous despise for this figure" and "their tupperware like reunions and reading all the babble that they put out," I mean, that is strong. What did he or "they" DO to you or to those you care about? Inquiring minds want to know...seriously, if he/"they" are that bad, it is important for people to know why. Evidence? Anectdotal? Whatever. As long as it is clear what kind of evidence it is, so people can make their own informed judgement. --138.89.144.194 00:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Please leave this line alone, it's not very strong

reply, emotional

Personal experiences, Reading habits

Well, my personal experience with SGI and the reading some of human revolution and the new human revolution, the Gosho, The Lotus Sutra, art of living and the older magazine [don't remember the name] visiting sgi.org website, going to some meetings watching how people behaved before and after, the proselytizing [hum...shakubuku anyone...oh no it's sansho-shima] the no effort dogmatic philosophy really gets to me because I think it really affected my friends and consequently myself. Well I might be wrong and enduring unnecessary hatred and Ill feelings here but that's what I feel. I dislike mr.Ikeda because he thinks [looks to me he does] he is the XXI century buddha, he is egotist and everyone thinks he is a saint and I don't trust people who meet with Tatchers and latin american dictators or the fact that he is compromised with establishment, he, and top figures in SGI are just like any other corporation I dislike that too, I dislike dogma even if it's with a good intention as SGI expounds.


I appreciate your sharing your experience. It sounds like you have a lot of reasons for distrust, and it sounds quite personal. Perhaps I shouldn't have gone there, and I won't ask for more detail. But since you have been open, I should offer this -- I too have known several different people over the course of my life, who have used this practice in their lives. But I have to tell you, they are all doing well. Not that they haven't had dificulties - they have most definately had their share - but it seems that this practice has helped them to deal with their problems in ways that have been really, well, surprising, very positive, lways very self empowering, and have really helped them develop their capacities as human beings. So even though I share (believe it or not) your aversion to organizations of all types, particularly religious ones, I have to say, one seems to be something very different. And you know, different doesn't always mean its a bad thing.
I find in your commentary, however, some points that I think are worth exploring a little, if you (and the readers) don't mind.I'll insert them below, near sections that seem like good natural breaks...see below -R

I'll continue this discussion privately with you R if you want so, I think this will not help viewers or to clear things in this page. You can reach me here, and I'll reply to your latest...uh.. reply: breakheretic[commercial a]yahoo[little black thingie]com

--P- 14:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I have nothing against people that believe in that faith, I have something pretty strong against the faith itself and Daishonin, Toda, Ikeda and the like. I think they are dangerous and more even so because it doesn't look really dangerous.

What exactly is "the danger"? Couldn't it be possible that it "doesn't look really dangerous," because it isn't?
I'll take in account history on this one. Name one religion that didn't end up in violent acts. SGI is growing fast, in a few years some conflits will surface. Time will tell.
Name one? How about Buddhism. Nichiren Buddhism in particular, and SGI specifically. This Buddhism has spread to over 12 million people in 190 countries without a drop of bloodshed. It has been over 3000 years since Buddha and the preaching of the Lotus Sutra, over 700 years since Nichiren, 75 years since SGI began, and about 45 years since Ikeda first came to the US. Time will tell, it is true. But so far, so good. -R --138.89.173.180 21:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC).
You know what? Some few hundred samurais were buddhists. Some Komeito politicians are SGI buddhists and still there is Japanese military personal in Iraq. To let things go to me does not sufice. Why the hell do you think Nichiren was persecuted? He violently insulted all other buddhist schools, very candid that nutter. Just keep watching SGI grow and you will witness violence, human behaviour follows patterns, SGI is not scrosaint it's constituted by humans and humans are volatile. Remember the church of jesus, remember it was about love, remember the aftermath of their bliss.

SGI actually only has 75 years, and it's not like early buddhism nor is it like Zen buddhism. SGI buddhism resembles more a mix between a Tea party and new age positive feelings. Most people never even read the Lotus Sutra and they certainly don't care about the other Sutras. Nooooo, mr.Daishonin discovered the fulcrum, why care about everything else? Nope, follow the recipe and all be well. It's just ludicrous, is this the Occams razor of religion? --P- 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? I thought your reference was to the tendency of religion to justify violence as in the Pope justifying slavery, the Crusades, and the genocide of Native Americans, all of which happened in the name of God and Christianity. This would have been a thoughtful and meaningful comment. But you missed the real comeback - so I'll give it to you - in fact, it is true that there was some bloodhed in Nichiren Buddhism -- the 23 people who were killed while defending Nichiren from attackers who didn't like what he was saying. But, hey, compared to the Crusades, and considering it wasn't Nichiren who initiated the bloodshed, it's pretty clean, relatively speaking.

You have so little faith in humanity. And no wonder - look at what we've done. But there is also that positive element, and there is no denying that we have, as a species, grown - a bit.

I do not have faith, and that is all. I have hope for humanity.--P- 12:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hope without faith? Here's something to think about with regard to that:
"Mahatma Gandhi was, in his own words, an “irrepressible optimist." But his hope was not based on an objective analysis of the conditions that faced him. Rather, it was based on his absolute faith in the “infinite possibilities of the individual." In the same way, the great dream of equality and human dignity that possessed Martin Luther King, Jr., was a dream upheld by the force of diamond-like faith and will. - Our Power for Peace - Published in Hope in a Dark Time -- Reflections on Humanity’s Future by Capra Press, Santa Barbara, available at http://www.sgi.org/english/President/essays/power.htm
And this: "'And while none would deny the great achievements of science and technology in the modern era, a misplaced faith in the omnipotence of reason has led humanity to believe that there is nothing beyond our power, thus bringing civilization to its present, apparently inextricable impasse. If past reliance on an external force led humanity to underestimate the full dimensions of our possibility and responsibility, excessive faith in our own powers has produced a dangerous overinflation of the human ego.'" - Daisaku Ikeda, Mahayana Buddhism and Twenty-first Century Civilization Speech

Delivered at Harvard University, September 24, 1993 available at http://www.sgi.org/english/President/speeches/mahayana.htm


As for Zen and other forms, no it is not like them. Thank goodness. And that was Nichiren's point, afterall. Look, you obviously have a grudge. Why don't you leave it alone and let people who are less emotionally involved - and better researchers - deal with it? -R

are you crazy? None of my edits were absurd or out context--P- 12:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

They tell you it's possible to have heaven on earth in a earnest way.

From what I understand, the philosophy is very self-affirming. It does not promise heaven on earth at all -- it suggests rather that heaven, hell, and buddhahood (and seven other "life conditions") all exist within each of us, and that it is really up to us to choose what kind of existence we want to live during this lifetime. There's a lot more to it of course, but that's the basic premise - there is no heaven, no hell, no external authority - there is just us and our connection to each other and the universe. In the degree to which we are able to truly, deeply, understand this connection, and live in ways that are affirming of that connection, we can bring a change in ourselves and ultimately a change in our world. That's all a bit esoteric, and idealistic, perhaps - but the thing is, it makes sense to me. What is different is that Nichren seems to have hit on a great practical method for helping people to "become the change they wish to see" It might be scarier, if it weren't so simple. Or maybe its the simplicity that is so frightening?- R
I feel it is pure deception and wishfull thinking--P- 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

UN, Democracy, NGO and the devil

Yes great deeds, and the NGO recognition status by the UN. Well I don't have a great deal of confidence in the UN or in democracy to act in the world so that doesn't work for me to the avail of SGI. Great philantropists are also the greates exploiters, just take the Vatican, Bill Gates and drug lords in South America, Middle East helping out all the farmers cropping alcaloids. Democracy works if you have money for a lawyer, i prefer to cal it demo - cracy. [in the bible the devil is sometimes portrayed as a lawyer, the Advocat/Adversary but this is an entirely different story. I never saw no one in SGI to shakubuku a poor man, they only go after middle class and artsy people, that is funny too. Nor have I seen the person that asks for money in the street in a reunion. Where is that kind of man in SGI? Well he can't afford nothing so no, don't you bother with him/they. 

   I refer to the last paragraph. From what I observed, it is usually the poor and the sick 
   who tends to pick up the practice as opposed to the "middle class and artsy people". I am a 
   member and I met many friends who are suffering from cancer, poverty, mental illness, drug 
   abuse, depression...you name it. In fact the middle class, artsy people are the least 
   likely bunch who pick up the practice because people from that class generally cannot 
   understand what is real suffering. I have a friend from Uganda refugee camp and even I 
   myself can't imagine the magnitude of death and suffering he witnessed. Please do not make 
   value judgments before understanding what is going on.
   
   In SG, we believe that we can do something as humans to improve our environment, 
   rather than sit back and do nothing about the injustice in the world and criticize how the 
   UN and democracy doesn't work. World peace is a vision that Ikeda holds very dear to his 
   heart, and something he is working very hard towards. 

   As a final note, even YOU have the potential to do something about improving democracy in 
   the world. Being an apathatic cynic doesn't really help in moving humanity forward. -- Moon

Tupperware and mechanisms for a world in thirds, doubts

I call it tupperware because the structure is similar to an SGI chapter, reunion place whatever. Please attend a tupperware meeting and check for yourself please.

Your contempt is showing. Its kind of like a homophobic response -- could it be that you are really just afraid that if you don't resist, you will succumb? And since you think this is something VERY VERY BAD, you can't allow yourself to BE yourself, love yourself, trust yourelf, and believe in yourself? The unfortunate and sad thing is, is it just really isn't a borg kind of thing. SGI just isn't as scary as you imagine it to be.

If you think SGI doesn't suck up your money, your personal resources, your one anima just see how much time you use up in SGI activity and compare that to a level that you would attain without doing that time. How much did you pay for a gohzon, butsudan, art of living, going to tretz, or that centre in england...taplow? yeah Taplow. Wait let me check your IP, ok you are in the US, so I don't know where you go every year, but add the plane tickets to that and oh yeah all the literature and bibliography they advise you to buy and the beeds and where to stop?

If you felt that SGI was "sucking up" so much from you, why did you allow it? I've never heard of anyone being required to give anything, or do anything they didn't want to do. Perhaps you should take more responsibility for your own choices in this regard. As for Taplow, and Art of Living, I think you may be talking about some other kind of practice. At least, I've I've never heard of it, anyway.
As for buying books and other items to support your practice, I don't see much difference between that and any other interest one may take up. Whatever it is - gaming, biking, yoga, church, pottery, jewelry making, football, whatever - they all have tons of stuff which we tend to buy to support our interest. Some people make do with the minimal - some want to have the best and most expensive of everything. If you lived beyond your means, that is not SGIs fault. Stop giving away your power.
Personally, I've spent less on this practice than I have on other interests that I have pursued in life - because most of the activities are FREE! I mean, seriously, I've seen three completely free concerts with great jazz musicians like Akua Dixon, Tenth World, Steve Turre, Buster Williams, and Nestor Torres, and a classical violin concert with a violinist with the New York Philharmonic, all over the last three years. I've enjoyed numerous picnics, hikes, barbecues, book discussions, discussions and workshops on peace, listened to lectures with the UN Undersecretary General Choudry, Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams, Founder of the Northern Ireland Peace Movement, and participated in workshops with local peace organizations. I have had the honor of listening to the stories of a few survivors of Hiroshima, and enjoyed wonderful dance performances, African Drum persformances, and all kinds of other stuff. All completely FREE! And because so much of this IS free, I end up spending less on dining out, going to movies, buying uneccessary stuf at the mall, just because going to the mall was something to do on a Saturday afternoon, yoga classes ( I do my own practice at home now), why? Because I already have a lot of other fun FREE things I can choose to do instead!
On the other hand, what I have paid for is a four day retreat, that was more relaxing, more inspiring, and, frankly, as much, if not more fun, memorable, and rewarding, than either my wonderful trip to Jamaica 2 years ago, my yoga retreat vacation in the Bahamas last summer, or my trip to Paris, France a few years ago -- and it cost me about 1/3rd to 1/2 the cost of any one of these others. So, you know, its all relative.
I have bought a lot of books and a couple of subscriptions -- but I am a book fiend anyway, so that is nothing surprising, unusual, or new. Although, when I first started out, I just borrowed from other people. The Butsudan was $40 bucks, (but for the first year or so, I used something I got at Ikea for $20) the candles $1.50, incense $4.00, and greens, well I bought some fancy juniper that is an evergreen, so it cost me $15 -- but will last forever. So, I don't know - to me, relatively speaking, that's not much. I used my old singing bowl that I got from yoga, as a bell for several years, but a few nmonths ago, I replaced it with a "real" bell, for about $30.
Quite frankly, I spent a lot more when I wasn't as focused on my goals - before practicing, I was working corporate, making a lot of money, spending a lot of money, wasting a lot of money. Saving some money. Now I work for a school, make a little less money, have more time for myself, spend less money, have more savings, enjoy my life more, enjoy my work more, have better more rewarding relationships, have less stress in general. I don't know about you, but its hard for me to put a price on that, and frankly, if I could buy that kind of peace and happiness, I wouldn't mind paying for it, if I could afford it. So as far as I am concerned, I'm getting it all at a steal!

Oh, the things you buy to other people when they start nam-myho.rengue-kyo ad eternum because it's your mission to achieve Kosen Rufu... 1/3 true buddhists, 1/3 supporters, 1/3 aggainst... you can't divide the world like that, the world and humans are organic unless you drive them through mind control or profound faith systems that have you indoctrinated you to behave accordingly.

All I can say is man, have you been practicing the wrong Buddhism! I don't know where you practiced, or with whom, but that is not what this practice is about.True, there is an old 2/3rds addage Yes, it can take up a lot of your resources -- but, hey, it is your choice to give them up, you know. Take some responsibility for your life, man!

Mind you that I'm for peace and I'm for realizing your full potential, but you know what? We have so much to learn from each other and from all the philosophers and workers and bakers and mothers and fathers and children that I see no point nor effectiveness in faith systems to achive that because if that faith tells you that this is true buddhism wich means that every other buddhism is false teaching, and that this is the only way to happiness. There is no straight path, if particles and the world revolve in free ways why should we behave differently? The universe is primordial and older than any mystical faith you want to see in it apply in it, and no words can reflect that because Existence is already a...hummmm... there, existing. Monism, Positivism, Determinism to me sound like a living hell. I could go on, but this is the wrong place this at the same time is so small that doesn't reflect my voice.

Once again, I can only ask - where and with whom did you practice??? I mean, not literally, to tell me, or anything. But seriously, either you got the wrong deal or you just didn't really understand what it was all about. In my area we are constantly learning from other people, from all kinds of backgrounds - people whose lives and mine would NEVER have ever even crossed paths otherwise, and some of these people have been my greatest sources of wisdom, support, encouragement! I mean, that's like half the whole point of it all, after all. And my eyes have been opened to more artists, scholars, visionaries, and philosophers through this practice, from Dante, to Whitman, to Ghandi, to Thoreau, to Mandela, to Emerson, to Nigerian born poet Ben Okri, to Victore Hugo... The list goes on and on. People I probably would never have even heard of, mich less read - and people I'd forgotten about since high school or college. Their messages, thoughts, ideas, and writings are part of my life now, in a way I don't think they would ever have been otherwise, and why? Because I have come across them through this practice, and because they all inspire, renew, and refresh my spirit. And I am the richer for it.
As for chanting being the "only path," well, hey, it works for me. I've tried several other paths - Catholicism, Baptism, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, even a little Islam and Judaism, and yoga (though yoga is NOT a religion, and it still informs my Buddhist Practice, and vice versa)), and I haven't gotten nearly as much bang for the buck. So to speak.
In my experience, no one has said "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY!" In fact, they have said "there are many ways" -- although they believe theirs to be the fastest route. But, they say, try for yourself and see what you think.
As for your comments on particles and the primordial, etc., I say this: Sounds like you already HAVE your own belief system - "The universe is primordial and older than any mystical faith you want to see in it apply in it, and no words can reflect that because Existence is already a...hummmm... there, existing". I say "good for you!" -- But don't kid yourself -- this is as much a belief system as any other - and it has its own rituals, rules, practices, etc. The real and only important question is this: Does this understanding of existance serve you well? That is, does it help you to find lasting happiness? Does it help you to acheive the peace you desire for yourself and others Does it help you and others around you, to realize your full potential? If so, then you go, girl (or guy!)! Whatever floats your boat. No need to tip some one else over, though. There's plenty of room out there for us all, don't you think?


I'm sorry if this is a too long reply, feel free to delete if you feel it's disturbing this talk page. --P- 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

SGI member here - no we won't delete the comment but what are you trying to say? This article is about Diasaku Ikeda not how SGI Buddhism is inferior to free moving particles.

hello SGI member there. If in any way I implied that «This article is about Diasaku Ikeda not how SGI Buddhism is inferior to free moving particles.» I wish to see where. If I established that I will cut one of my hands just becasue of wasting my one time typing words that do not translate what my thoughts are. Are you familiar with writing? Do you know what an analogy is? Establishing a relation between particles [the little stuff that makes you!!!]and us doesn't seem to be inappropriate, but heck, what do I know? How come of all the things I wrote you reply to this sentence, eludes me totally, I'm making an effort not to insult you so instead I'll advise you to polish your mirror and if you are SGI you know what this means.

and why don't you sign your name in your comments and replies? --P- 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

YOu state: "I see no point nor effectiveness in faith systems to achive that because if that faith tells you that this is true buddhism wich means that every other buddhism is false teaching, and that this is the only way to happiness. There is no straight path, if particles and the world revolve in free ways why should we behave differently? "::Hi, SGI member and P! SGI member, I for one, understand perfectly why you picked that sentence to respond to - because it was so inane it begged response. (By the way, P, SGI member and I are not the same person). 1
How the hell can I tell? You aren't even signed on wikipedia! I'm very glad that you understood it perfectly.--P- 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
As to the rest of your diatribe, P, I decided not to respond to the comments about the UN and the "Tupperware party" etc. because they are personal to you, and you did offer to discuss them one on one, and I felt for you. Besides, to discuss them here is not appropriate -- they are not important to the topic of writing a fair and unbiassed article about Dr. Ikeda. Your opinions are yours and you may have them - but it is not the purpose of this discussion to try to argue with you about them.
In defense of SGI Member, however, I imagine SGI Member picked this particle comment to respond to because, like I said, some things beg response. And in SGI Member's defense, sometimes it is impossible to resist the urge. - Ruby --138.89.173.180 21:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm still glad you boys get along, and still I'm left unware as to why the picking. Man, I must be getting really tired and old and ugly. Must grow taller, must bild up my will, yes, the advocates are many.--P- 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is the sentence: "I see no point nor effectiveness in faith systems to achive that because if that faith tells you that this is true buddhism wich means that every other buddhism is false teaching, and that this is the only way to happiness. There is no straight path, if particles and the world revolve in free ways why should we behave differently? "

Ahhhhh...now I understand. No need to feel so insecure with yourself, P. You are tall enough, young enough, pretty enough, and gosh darn it - people like you! Besides, you have Buddha nature, too! - R.

No you don't understand, irony is very hard to master in written text and I fail miserably at it. And thank god almighty [sarcasm] I don't have a Buddha nature, I have a human nature.--P- 12:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the response given you was meant as irony as well. Sounds like a play on Stuart Smalley (I think that's the name - the Al Franken character? I thought it was funny, anyway. But as for having human nature - that would put you in the 5th of the 10 worlds. Buddha nature is there. like it or not; just not currently activated. (That would be my little attempt at sarcasm, btw!) :-) - KPMP--68.44.192.165 01:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I got some things cleaned up I think.. and also found a very inspiring article [What is a featured article]

--P- 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks better to me...thanks.--138.89.144.194 00:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Removed comment about Gandhi, King, Ikeda

Article was saying that "Gandhi, King, Ikeda" exhibition is "an example of how Ikeda is portrayed to his followers". But as this implies that the exhibition is made by SGI, it makes no sense. Idea and execution is by Morehouse College, SGI is only cosponsoring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.221.65 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article still in dispute?

How/when is an article decided to be no longer POV? It looks good to me as is, and I know it has been through several revisions. Can I move to have it taken off the list? Any seconds? Can we vote on it? - R--71.250.88.213 03:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As it stands, I don't see any dispute either. Pretty much every conflict seems to rise from the concept that you are guilty until proven innocent, which is absurd in my view. I second the motion to removing the dispute claim. On a different note, the lack of formatting is a nightmare here. Everybody please start your reply with colons (as many as there are replies) and sign off your comment with four tildas. That will add appropriate indentions and names and date stamps automatically. Otherwise readers can't figure out who's replying to who. Jgrey 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Its good - I would take it of the disputed list - anyone else? - KenV

Whaddya know! A few months later, and we have - through peaceful dialogue! -- all agree to disagree, and still respect each other in the morning. Well done. = Ruby --71.250.122.11 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a whitewash. Not one single paragraph of criticism of one of the most controversial men in Japan. In Japan his face is on the front page of his own 'newspaper' nearly every day... Andycjp 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is quite conservative in its praise of one of the most remarkable men in history. I believe it is important to seek the best in everybody, rather than meaningless criticism. Just because he is featured in the Seikyo Shimbun, does not mean he deserves criticism. What about his article on the editorial page of Japan Times every Thursday? Please learn to appreciate before criticising.134.36.200.114 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Conservative my foot. “One of the most remarkable men in history,” perhaps; but the question is: For what? I doubt that we would agree on the answer. As far as Seikyo Shimbun is concerned, the way Ikeda features in it reveals more about how Soka Gakkai (SG) members (are inculcated to) unconditionally adore Ikeda than it reveals about him; the way other people (such as former SG and Komeito leaders who have parted ways with SG) feature in Seikyo Shimbun is what reveals much about Ikeda and the true nature of SG, its mentality, and its commitment to peace and the betterment of society. All of these things are deserving of rigorous critical scrutiny, if not criticism itself. Jim_Lockhart 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I must say I have no particular bearing on this debate, but theoretically your comment is a very generalized one which can be applied in both directions - 1st observer perceives the 2nd, while 2nd perceives the 1st. So from where I'm standing it seems like an irony, and it's a pointless debate from the standpoint of a biography.
I think the problem here is that down at the boilerplate, a lot of this degenerates into who said this, who said that. You can pile on with accusations on anybody to turn that person controversial, but that should not colour the article. Critical scrutiny of "ideology" is one thing, scrutinizing a stereotype through critical writing is something else entirely. Both tend to come across similar, and they do sure FEEL the same. But the latter usually leads to a character assassination. If we are planning to do that in a encyclopedic reference of a living person, we better ensure that the facts surrounding the criticism is watertight at every corner. Otherwise an article like this would turn into a gossip column in a long run, with a character assassination being the bizarre side effect. We must strive to avoid such a move, whichever side you are on. Jgrey (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Can you tell the issue(s) of Seikyo Shimbun with unfair comments about former Komei leaders or SG members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.221.65 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

I removed the follwing paragraph from the article since it's unsourced. I have no idea if it's true or not but if it's included in the article, it must be sourced. Garion96 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Which also counts for talk pages Garion96 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The content of that section sure represents an picture of Ikeda that most non-SGI Japanese people would characterize as "common sense" (e.g., almost everyone would recognize it as accurate, despite SGI members' best efforts to negate it), which may account for the lack of sourcing. But the view of Ikeda described there can be verified by checking any number of Japanese sources, such as but not limited to the following:
  • Sokagakkai kaibai (創価学会解剖: "Dissecting Sokagakkai"), by the editors of AERA, a weekly investigative new magazine published by Asahi Shimbun-sha, one of Japan's leading news organizations; October 1995 (Generally considered to present a dry, fair assessment of Sokagakkai and Ikeda)
  • Sokagakkai towa nanika (創価学会とは何か: "Explaining Sokagakkai"), by Yamada Naoki. Shinchosha, April 2004.
  • Sokagakkai (創価学会: "The Sokagakkai"), by Shimada Hiromi. Shinchosha, April 2004. (Written by a professor who studies the relationship between religions and society, generally considered a neutral description)
  • Cult toshite no Sokagakkai=Ikeda Daisaku (カルトとしての創価学会=池田大作: "Sokagakkai, the Daisaku Ikeda cult"), by Furukawa Toshiaki. Daisan Shokan, November 2000)
  • Sokagakkai Zaimubu no uchimaku (創価学会財務部の内幕: "Inside Sokagakkai's finance & accounting department"), by Gakkai Money Kenkyukai (an association dedicated to uncovering Sokagakkai's shady money-collecting, accounting practices and financial dealings, and tax evasion). Shogakukan, June 2000. (Unabashedly anti-Sokagakkai in tone and presentation)
Unfortunately, I am currently away from my usual workspace for a few months and don't have any of these books with me, so won't be able to provide page–line references for a few months. But a quick scan of these publications—particularly their contents pages—could quickly substantiate many of the assertions made in the two deleted paragraphs. In any case, another part of the Wikipedia policies presented on "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" needs to be observed in this article, which is still far too partial to its subject matter:

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. (Emphasis mine)

Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart 20:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New kid needs time

Apologies to those who have been ruffled by my recent additions to this page on Ikeda. This is my first effort and I'm still learning the ropes.

Regarding the information recently added, I beleived that it does name sources, but if anyone is unsatisfied I invite them to be more specific. However, I note that the existing material on Ikeda is full of unreferenced claims.

There does appear to be a lack of balance.

brahilly

Lives in Tokyo with two sons?

Odd, given that at least one of his two sons lives in Osaka, and that both are married and have their own families. Also, it should be noted that his two living sons are his surviving sons, since one son is dead. —Jim_Lockhart 15:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Protest against use of certain sources

There is no evidence to suggest that Daisaku Ikeda is funding the Komeito party. The party website clearly outlines its sources of funding.[1] Therefore the reference citing the New York Times article as a criticism of Daisaku Ikeda is slanderous and non-neutral. I also contend that the Time magazine reference, which interestingly enough is not to be found on the Time archives anymore, is not about Daisaku Ikeda per se. It starts with a false case lodged against the Soka Gakkai by Daito and Naoko Asaki on September 23, 1995. On December 22, 1995 the Higashi Murayama police officially announce that 'there was no evidence of criminality' in the case and that it was 'suicide caused by remorse over a shopliftng charge'. On May 15, 2001,The Tokyo High Court upheld Lower Court rulings that Daito and Naoko Asaki defamed the Soka Gakkai. On May 18, 2001 The Tokyo High Court upholds Lower Court rulings that the publishing company, Kodanasha, defamed the Soka Gakkai. On October 29, 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and ordered defendants to publish a retraction and apology in Shukan Gendai and pay 2 million yen in damages to the Soka Gakkai. Shukan Gendai published a notice of retraction and apology to the Soka Gakkai on the March 8, 2003, issue, which reached the newsstands on February 24. Considering this, it is clear that using an outdated and incorrect article will cause prejudice and not reflect the truth. Therefore, both these criticisms lack substance and must be removed to preserve any modicum of neutrality. (Comment added to article body by User:Sri v123 at 10:11 on 15 September 2007; moved here by Jim_Lockhart 14:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC).)

Yes but shouldn`t the fact that his organization has been frequently involved in court cases be in the article?Andycjp 04:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure as long as the verdict is displayed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.200.114 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
With Soka Gakkai, you have to go beyond mere verdicts. I’ve seen Soka Gakkai quote verdicts in a way that made it look like “guilty” or “not guilt” was all there was to it, when in fact Soka Gakkai “won” (actually, it’s been more like their opponent lost on a technicality) the case technically but lost (and their opponent, won) it substantially. Jim_Lockhart 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources are nothing more than sources. An article from the NYT saying the New Komeito party is influenced by the Soka Gakkai is pretty good evidence. If you have other sources which refute this, please provide them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.208.34 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross

I have just deleted a mention of a critical article on the Rick Ross website. I believe I was correct to do this, but not for the reason I gave at the time. I said that Rick Ross was not a reliable source. However I had overlooked the fact that the article in question seems to have been one that originally appeared in the Tokyo Journal. By the sound of it, the Tokyo Journal is a moderately respectable publication. However the article in question is extremely poorly researched and full of easily demonstrable factual inaccuracies. For instance it says that Soka Gakkai members regard Ikeda as the earthly reincarnation of Nichiren. Nowhere will you find the slightest bit of evidence for this. In fact Ikeda has himself said that the very notion of a special "living Buddha" is absurd in Buddhism. As far as sources go, the article cites the Shukan Shincho. one of Japan'd disgraceful weekly scandal sheets.[1] The Tokyo Journal article is neither useful nor trustworthy. Ireneshusband (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You not only deleted the Rick Ross article which was based on the Tokyo Journal, but you also deleted the entire section, including information on his questionable relationships to people such as Manuel Noriega. As you also gave no reason for deleting the entire section including other well sourced items unrelated to the Rick Ross section, I have undone your change. No blanket deletes please. This is a criticism section, and it is very criticism is key to dialouge. I will examine the Rick Ross article. Historyhelper (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And very importantly, you mention the Tsurumi(霍見芳浩) book does not exist. It's just that it has never been published in English. It was published in Japan under the name: アメリカ殺しの超発想, which was translated to French in the page http://www.prevensectes.com/chambre/noriega-francais.html and then to English in a few place as "An unusual way of Killing America," in the . So it exists, but only in Japanese. Please check out http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/corporate/totten/column/1176390_629.html to learn more about this issue, there is a link at the top to use google to translate this page. The truth is that this could be an interesting point in understanding political relations between the U.S. and Japan during the time period, and helps explain why Noriega and Ikeda were friends. Historyhelper (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also as mentioned above "The sources are nothing more than sources." Rick Ross has collected articles from the BBC, the Associated Press, Japan Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, Sydney Morning Herald, United States House of Rerpresentatives Committee on Government Reform, Asahi Evening News, New York Times, and many many more. We are not talking about a Japanese tabloid here, we are talking about some of the most respected media sources avalailable. If those aren't sources... what are? Historyhelper (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting my text. This has shown me that al text must be well referenced to be included. Shall I filter the entire article and remove all of the text that is not referenced? We are talking about a rspected Professor who taught George Bush! and major publications, not about tabloids. Historyhelper (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I reverted. Please find better sources. The Rick Ross section is original research. The link only lists articles, it doesn't source what the section which was removed stated. The articles itself could be used as sources. Regarding the Noriega link. Is there any collaborating source besides that one book? Otherwise it does look like your standard conspiracy theory. ps: feel free to remove any unsourced info from this article, whether it is negative or positive. Garion96 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss before deleting please? I'm all for discussion, but it's frustrationg just having my changes deleted.Historyhelper (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's discuss it before adding it again is the better approach. Especially since this article is about a livng person. See also WP:BLP. Garion96 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take a moment to read about what is original research in the help section. For it to be original research it would need to be MY research. Rick Ross is a TERTIARY SOURCE not original research. I think professors, especially one of Tsurumi's level are great sources and places this much higher than a conspiracy theory. Historyhelper (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So, do you object to Rick Ross being used as a Tertiary Source? Historyhelper (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, next Sunday I will have a chance to work some more on this. If you can think of a reason Rick Ross should not be used as a Tertiary Source, please let me know by then. Also, I will gather additional sources for the Noriega / Ikeda relationship Historyhelper (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Ross page. It is a page consisting only of links to articles. It doesn't state anything. Like the text "being a dominant leader". Deducting statements like that from the links is original research. The link used does not backup the text. Garion96 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense then. I will propose a revision here and send you a talk message to review it Historyhelper (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


"signs of narcissism"

In this edit, an IP removes

Daisaku Ikeda has also shown signs of narcissism and religious propaganda by raising himself to a god-like status by enforcing a Third Silent Prayer in SGI Buddhist daily practices in recognition of his personal achievements and contribution to Soka Gakkai International.
{{quote|I pray that the great desire for kosen-rufu be fulfilled and that the Soka Gakkai International develop in this endeavor for countless generations to come.I offer appreciation and pray to repay my debt of gratitude for the three founding presidents-Tsunesaburo Makiguchi,Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda-as eternal models of selfless dedication to the propogation of the Law.<ref>The Liturgy of Nichiren:Daishonin's Buddhism, p.18.</ref>}}

with the comment

Removed the section beginning "Daisaku Ikeda has also shown signs of narcissism". Quotation from Liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism is incorrect so does not support claim.

One thing that's for sure is that the word "liturgy" appears nowhere else in the article, meaning that publication details of this book are not provided.

Further, Worldcat doesn't list any book titled The Liturgy of Nichiren: Daishonin's Buddhism.

Perhaps the editor who added this can explain. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have alerted the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The editor hasn't yet deigned to comment, and instead has just readded the material. Questions for the editor:
  • Precisely what is "The Liturgy of Nichiren:Daishonin's Buddhism"?
  • Who inferred from this that "Daisaku Ikeda has also shown signs of narcissism and religious propaganda by raising himself to a god-like status", and precisely where has the writer published this inference?
-- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize for my ignorance in not replying here earlier before the re-edit as I was unaware of this talk page.However I feel that readers of this article should be made aware of Daisaku Ikeda's character and not only of his listed achievements.

  • The book The Liturgy of Nichiren: Daishonin's Buddhism is published by SGI-USA under the World Tribune Press.ISBN 978-1-932911-74-9.The book is used as a guide for Nichiren Buddhism practices.All SGI buddhists are given this book upon initiation into Sokka Gakkai International.As far as I am concerned, the quotation I have cited is identical to the passage found in the 2009 edition of the book.
  • Daisaku Ikeda showing signs of narcissism and religious propaganda is not something that is subjective.For a person to revise a prayer to draw appreciation and gratification towards oneself is already considered narcissism and propaganda in itself.

I do not want to argue with you on this article so if you wish to leave my contribution removed then so be it.203.100.215.204 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's put aside the matter of narcissism and religious propaganda till we've sorted out the simpler matter of the book. Thank you for the added precision. I googled for the ISBN and found it in just one place (here within a site about Braille books), where the title's given rather differently, as The Liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism. Now, the string "The Liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism" gets quite a lot of hits at SGI sites. One of them is this page of the British SGI site, where it's given not as the title of any book but rather as the description or subtitle of something titled, or marketed as, "Gongyo Book". (I'd never heard of "gongyo"; Wikipedia's description of Sōka Gakkai's gongyō is hilariously awful.) I'm not saying you're wrong, just treble-checking here: is this one of those bibliographically troublesome book(let)s that sport different titles in different places? If so, the most authoritative one will be the one on the title page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The cited reference does not support the assertion, as Hoary has indicated, because it does not itself say these things about article's subject. The editor seems to be interpreting the content of the source (which is, basically, a prayer book) as evidence of his own conclusions about the subject; but such use of sources is not permitted on Wikipedia (unless the conventions have changed since last time I looked ;) ). Further, the source, by its very nature, is not a valid (i.e., citable) source. HTH, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Partly true; however, a published prayer book is an excellent source for an assertion that such and such appears in that prayer book. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
AH, yes; point taken. I thought it would be clear that I was addressing its use as a source for substantiating a claim that was not in the source. The Soka Gakkai prayer book, by including material that basically prescribes that its members adulate Ikeda in their prayers, does substantiate the editor's assertion inasmuch as it is evidence, but that nonetheless even writing this would be, IIRC, “original research.” It that context, it’s too bad that prayer book can’t be cited, because it does illustrate quite well other authors’ (incl. journalists’ and academics’) claims that Soka Gakkai is organized around a personality cult focused on Ikeda. Perhaps the editor could find some other, verifiable and reliable source that makes the assertion—e.g., Yano Jun'ya’s recently published Watashi ga aishita Ikeda Daisku: “Kyoshoku no ou” to no 50 nen, ISBN 978-4-06-215972-2. OTOH, the ludicrous tone of this article as it stands, and its lack of descriptions of criticism of Ikeda (plus the prompt removal of most such material) also bears out this facet of the subject in an indirect manner. HTH, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A few things on the subject of the prayer book as proof of narcissism: First,I personally have no clue who made the final call on the wording for the third prayer. I will state though that at the organizational level, the "Founding Fathers" of Soka Gakkai are Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda. To truly call him narcissistic, other sources will be needed.
Secondly, the title: It is one of those books that is core to the organization, as such it has probably a dozen things that different people call it. The book itself is labeled "The Liturgy of Nichiren Daishonen," so that is what I would be inclined to use for citations. Emry (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Song Teajak

According to certain sources, Ikeda's "real name" is stated to be Song Teajak.
These sources all seem to be in Spanish (or Catalan).
No explanation is given as to why someone apparently of Japanese peasant ancestry would have an imported Korean or Chinese name.
Presumably this information is false?
Varlaam (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee

I've just deleted:

The well known British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee published her thoughts critical of Ikeda in the Manchester Guardian in 1984.

The Manchester Guardian didn't exist in 1984. It had become the Guardian years earlier.

The fact that somebody published her thoughts (critical or laudatory) on Ikeda is of little significance. What did she say? If it was substantive and we know precisely where she said it, it should be readded.

I have to say, though, that it does sound vaguely familiar. I think I've read of how Ikeda was badgering Toynbee to talk up his relationship with Arnold Toynbee. Maybe somebody here can come up with a solid reference. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Toynbee's piece was reproduced in the Daily Yomiuri, and it is quoted extensively and discussed in Peter Popham's Tokyo: The City at the End of the World, pp 63 et seq. It's not a "criticism", it's a description; and I have therefore added it to the main part of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced and needs more work to adhere to a neutral point of view

This article is unbalanced -- criticisms of Ikeda abound, and they need to be addressed in this article. Earlier versions of this article were more balanced but criticisms seem to have been removed one by one. While each removal discussed here is perhaps reasonable on its own, the overall effect is that the article does not follow NPOV. It is not reasonable to have a detailed list of dozens of honorary degrees and appointments, while just having a couple of sentences of criticism. 24.128.49.84 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

At least one editor believes that there is too much criticism. See this edit by the brand new editor Sleemcgill. Perhaps Sleemcgill would like to present a rational argument here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to be neutral and state facts, which can be cited. The section that was deleted stated series of quotations about Mr. Ikeda's meeting with Arnold Toynbee. The quotes put together created an image that had a bias to a particular viewpoint instead of stating facts in an impartial manner. A wikipedia article is meant to be written in an impartial way, which does not show judgment.(user:sleemcgill)

The number of honorary degrees alone should raise a red flag on the educated reader. Deserving Nobel Peace Prize winners have not collected nearly as many. An educated reader can look at the quality, reputation, and national/international standing of the granting institution and decide whether the awardee actively campaigns to secure such honors. It is a verifiable fact that Mr. Ikeda receives some of those awards in Japan, by fully funding the travel expenses to Japan of the awarding institution dignataries. As the list includes a long number of developing country state institutions and U.S. fourth tier universities, it is not difficult for an educated audience to ascertain the credibility and worth of that many "awards." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.29.128 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's a verifiable fact, perhaps you'd like to provide the sources that verify it.
(My own "original research" tells me that the numerous ads placed in Tokyo trains by Sōka Gakkai to advertise his various honorary doctorates never show a large audience.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" obscurity

The article tells us that:

In [1995], previous accusations over vilification of Daisaku Ikeda were eventually completely exonerated of the charges by the Japanese Supreme Court

I can't even guess what that means. Can anyone help? -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Books

A great many books by Ikeda are listed. These are given titles in English. Are these titles the original titles, or are they nonce translations for this article? Either way, who published them, and what are their ISBNs? Perhaps somebody interested in Ikeda could provide this information. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Friendship links"

In this edit I deleted a set of "Friendship links", whose obscure title actually just listed links to Wikiquote. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ikeda Article Too One-Sided

First, the article says Ikeda received "the United States Congressional Award." According to Wikepedia's article on the Congressional Award, it is given only to people between the ages of 14 and 23. It's possible the award was given to young people in SGI, but I doubt Ikeda himself received it.

Second, there are a number of controversies surrounding Ikeda that either are not mentioned or sugar-coated, including allegations from several years ago of misappropriation of money and attempts to buy political influence in Japan. There was a huge blow-up in SGI membership in the 1990s after Ikeda's excommunication from Nichiren Shoshu, because Ikeda didn't bother to inform the membership for many months. People found out about it through rumor and the internet and many bailed out of SGI then. His pushing of aggressive proselytizing tactics back in the 1970s also remains controversial. None of this is mentioned in the article.

It's suspected that many of the honors given him, including honorary degrees, were conferred as conditions of some institution receiving a generous donation from SGI. Here is an example:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-08-18/news/park-near-coit-tower-may-hang-plaque-honoring-alleged-cult-leader/

Mahabarbara (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That article you refere to is too subjective, and you there is no proof of attemps to buy government. People are ofcourse afraid of an organization that got 12 million members in 50 years. The article says without arguments: "It's personality-driven and totalitarian in its structure; there's a process of indoctrination compared to what is commonly called brainwashing; and it does harm.". If I want I can visit my national SGI leader without a problem if I have a good reason. Nothing totalitarian about it. And SGI keeps videos and some tekst intern because they can be ripped out of context like these quotes "I am the king of Japan; I am its president; I am the master of its spiritual life," and "I am the supreme power who entirely directs its intellectual culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.253.54 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorates

Honorary Professorships are by no means the same as Honorary Doctorates. The list is misleading & should separate out the 2 different honours. (EmandTee (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

You could have done that. If the list returns, you can still do it.
As it is, Offtoriorob has removed the whole table, with the edit summary trim table,there is an external link to the website and they are all there. I think he's gone a bit too far (though with good intentions). Not only does SG(I) bang on about all his honorary doctorates, but people elsewhere do take notice of their number. Here's a breathless story at Current TV's website: "Daisaku Ikeda Holds World Record for Most Academic Honorary Degrees [258 as of 07/16/09]" (sourced to SGI, in turn suggesting that Keith Olbermann's new employer has lower standards for sourcing than WP does).
People may want to see these for themselves, in a website (WP) that at least attempts to be based on information from disinterested sources. Oh yes, there's a list that the WP article now points to: this one at daisakuikeda.org. But, unsurprisingly, it's completely unsourced. Now, honorary doctorates aren't rare, but they're not that common either: mention of an honorary doctorate should be clearly presented in material published by the respective university; if it's recent, there should be mention (or more likely an entire web page) on the web. So let's see it.
I have to admit, I'm also rather cheesed off by Offtoriorob's deletion (however well intended), because as the history will show, I put some effort into sourcing some of these. (Actually I think that most of the few that were referenced were referenced by me.) Was this all for nothing? -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As per this comment I reverted my edits to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
But, but -- I wasn't objecting to your edits in general, merely to the biggest among them: the removal of the list of honorary doctorates. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

disinterested sources for Ikeda's accomplishments

In this edit, I pulled out a huge number of footnotes that source claims for Ikeda's accomplishments via Ikeda's own website, or the websites of the religion he heads.

No, claims for accomplishments need disinterested sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think a self-published source is better than no source. Mato (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's one objection. Here, posted to on my talk page, is another:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations, there is nowhere states that the official websites are not the reliable sources of reference for his honors and accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.197.80 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia:Quotations is primarily about quotations (as in, the kind of stuff that typically goes between quotation marks), and not primarily about citing sources for factual assertions.

Secondly, Wikipedia:Quotations does say:

Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence).

Yes, let's see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. It says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.

And what's a "reliable source"? It's hard for me to compress further what's already presented in Wikipedia:Verifiability. But I draw your attention to this within this part of it:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (emphasis in the original)

There's more. We read:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities [...] so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving; [...]

The meanings (note plural) within Wikipedia of the word "source" have already been explained (here), and bearing this explanation in mind it's clear that what I've just quoted means that Ikeda's website, and the website of the religion headed by Ikeda, are self-published and thus questionable sources that may indeed be used within Wikipedia for certain kinds of information (e.g. the names and years of birth of his children, assuming that there is no controversy over this) -- but not for any assertion of any accomplishment by Ikeda.

Note again:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people

Claims for Ikeda's accomplishments need to be backed by reliable sources. One requirement for reliability is that the source is disinterested. Neither Ikeda's website nor a Sōka Gakkai (International) website is disinterested, and therefore neither can be used to source such assertions as that he has received honorary doctorates, or that his photography is highly regarded. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP has simply ignored this and reintroduced all this stuff. I've removed it, and more. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you consider unduly self-serving? By subjective or objective means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.197.80 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mention of any achievement makes the person look better. As long as there's no dispute over, say, where somebody lived during a certain period, then we can normally use that person's own account. By contrast, when we read that somebody has been given an honorary degree or that his photographs have been exhibited, this should come with independent evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.komei.or.jp/en/faq.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda/Archive_1&oldid=789369507"