Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 April 2006– 1.1 Request for more info on brainwashing techniques 1.2 Removal of negative material from intro unacceptable 1.3 Introduction & the article 2 May 2006 3 You have to be kidding 4 brainwashing, my experience 5 Soka Gakkai 6 SGI, Money, and brainwashing 7 "Cult" definition 8 Kofu Fund? 9 NPOV

[edit] April 2006–

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request for more info on brainwashing techniques

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removal of negative material from intro unacceptable

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

[edit] Introduction & the article

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

I'm am not opposed to the idea of separating the criticism from the article(s); as a matter of fact, I welcome it, though I do think mention of the existence of the criticism with hyperlinks to descriptions of it are warranted: Removal of all criticism is not NPOV, it is the most furtive kind of POV there is because it creates the impression that there is no criticism.

Your impression that criticism of SGI is based on its conflict with Nichiren Shoshu, however, is mistaken, though most likely what SGI members would like you to think. SGI, or more precisely its parent Soka Gakkai, has been controversial in Japan since at least the mid-1950s, but especially since the early 1960s when it began to gain political influence and the existing political players, especially the unions and the parties on the left, began to see it as a threat. It has also always been controversial for its virulent evangelism, which it now blames on its contemporary association with Nichiren Shoshu. You can find information about this by researching older publications (pre-1980s) on the subject, if you can find them. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm under deadline right now and won't have time to review all your changes until the weekend. That said, I think your creation of the separate article on criticism is in principle a good thing; but that doesn't mean that references to criticism should be eliminated from the current article—that would be POV. What I have intended to say is that criticism need not be discussed in detail in this article. The need only be mentioned as existing, with a link to the article that deals specifically with them. This is the pattern you will observe in other, especially long, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects.

I believe that mention of criticism of SGI belongs in the introduction—which is intended as an executive summary of the article to follow—and that the article body should also contain a heading and summary of the criticisms, with the redirect to the main Criticisms of SGI article. Without such a paragraph or section to provide balance, the article becomes nothing more than another marketing tribute to SGI—a situation that many other contributors have long complained about (see the above-linked archives for details). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You're just wrong on this, Jim. As soon as you start talking about, say, the French and Belgian governments' criticisms of SGI, you're no longer talking about SGI; you're talking about someone *else's* views of the SGI. Go to Wikipedia's pages for the Catholic Church- nothing in the introduction about the Inquisition, yet that was surely far worse than what the critics of SGI have to say. Go to the page for Islam- again, nothing in the introduction about the nutjobs calling themselves "muslims" who're driving airplanes into buildings.

The article is about the SGI. It is not about the criticism of the SGI. If you want to write about the criticism of the SGI, then write a separate article about it, and put a link to that article into the main one.

Simply because the main article talks about the SGI without saying "some people say they're practicing mind control" or something like that doesn't make it a "marketing tribute".

There's other places in the article where it quits being about the SGI and starts being about what other people SAY about the SGI... like in the history, where (when talking about Ikeda stepping down in 1979) it says "according to Nichiren Shoshu followers..."

That would be like talking about the Pope and saying "according to Lutherans, the pope is full of poop". Why should/would we quote Lutherans' perceptions of the Pope in an article about the Pope?

Ultimately, I strongly urge we consider following the layout of the pages of other religions, where criticisms of the group in question are sections of the main article, or entirely separate pages in and of themselves. They don't belong in the introduction, and they should be properly recognized as being what someone else says *about* the group rather than being something describing the group itself.--Enumclaw 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'm going to have to chew on this for a while—as well as check out how the articles on other religious (and political groups, methinks) groups are formulated. I recall that they (e.g., the one on the Pope) do contain the mention of criticism that you say they don't have, but it's been a long time since I read them, and when I did that isn't the sort of thing I was reading for. In any case, in broad principle, I agree with your final paragraph, except for the part about the introduction.

That said, I have difficulty with the notion that the SGI article should not contain descriptions of what others think about SGI insofar as those opinions are relevant to getting a full picture of SGI. An article that contains only descriptions favorable to SGI, when there is so much unfavorable (at least, from SGI members' perspective) to report about it, does become a bit of an marketing tribute (for lack of a better qualification—I'm sure there's a more appropriate description, but I can't think of it right now).

Meanwhile, I note that someone is taking advantage of the removal of criticism to the discrete article to take the teeth out of that article as well. I wonder if people who do this realize that, by repeatedly emasculating criticism of SGI, that they are potential giving credence to those criticisms—especially the ones we've repeatedly seen on this page to the effect that SGI members will not tolerate critical views of their organization or (especially) its leadership, and that this is effectively one way in which SGI functions to silence its critics. Later, Jim_Lockhart 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] You have to be kidding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those who accuse the organisation for engineering their miserable time as membersm well if you applied more diligence and depth (regardless of Buddhist school) to your Buddhist study, you may realise that all ultimately espouse that YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your life. And if that meant that you needed to convert to another religion, that is TOTALLY FINE to discover what turns you on. I don;t deny that there are some SGI members who have issues with people who are not Buddhists, but that's their issue. I've met many non-Buddhists who are clear about taking charge of their lives, that's even better. Re: the dialogue and engagement that Ikeda takes up with leaders of various faiths and backgrounds on a regular basis. Intercultural, inter-faith engagement is what is being demonstrated here by Ikeda's actions, and not exclusion, a movement that other faiths are also pushing for in the context of current global conflict.

Nam-myo-hon-renge-kyo is ultimately a practice (like playing the violin, or yoga) and you are totally free to choose NOT to practise it, if you think it does not work for you. Those of us who are totally biased SGI members on this forum, it's because it has worked for us and continue to do so, though not always instantaneously. And while chanting brings lots of benefits, people forget that it's hard work to sustain any faith and apply its principles to our lives. I don't know about other faiths, but I know that Buddhism is simple stuff but hard work.

Cheers TK

[edit] brainwashing, my experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Soka Gakkai

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margherita

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

[edit] SGI, Money, and brainwashing

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my two cents.

J3nny3lf 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Cult" definition

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

The following is a problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Kofu Fund?

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

Hi Seshanna,

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV

added, as it seems to be controversial. Why?

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

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

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

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

Sin-man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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