Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some suggested changes to Main Article

I believe that the second paragraph of the main article is overstating on President Ikeda's personal actions/contibutions. Can we shift that portion to Ikeda main article and maybe state a bit of changes to SGI established when Ikeda became SGI president.I would like some advice or suggestions to my proposed changes.--Gammadion 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes that may balance this out. I noted that there was a definate confusion of Soka Gakkai with SGI, so I tried to sort this out a bit more clearly. In doing so, I hope I clarified and put into better perspective, Ikeda's role in both organizations. Since this article is supposed to be about SGI, it seemed fitting that there be more about it in the intro paragraphs, and less about SG in general. SGI is, after all, an entity unto itself. SG has a very distinct history of its own. - R--70.21.220.149 07:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

SGI grew out of SG, so the history isn't so distinct.Gammadion 07:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are notable differenences between the two organizations and their histories. For instance, considering some people's concern about the political relationship of SGI and Japan, it is worth noting that while SG had some affilitation with politics in its past, a mistake which it continues to have to answer for, this is not so with SGI as a whole.

To my knowledge (and feel free to prove me wrong - but please cite your sources) none of the other SGI affiliates has never had, or attempted to have any political connection of any kind in the policitcs of any of its member countries.

Not to mention, each SGI organization has its own unique developement within each country, reflecting the culture, history, and other social aspects of each country. They are one organization made up of many distinctly different sister organizations. Each one has a different history.

By the way, while SGI may have been born of SG, according to Soka Gakkai Japan "Soka Gakkai is one of 79 worldwide constituent organizations that make up the Soka Gakkai International (SGI)". Perhaps this may make for a bit of "six of one, half dozen of the other" debate, but it's worth a reference. - Ruby

Just noting that the histories of SG and SGI are not so distinct(but nevertheless distinct entities), that's all. They both are organizations whose main goal is to spread Nichiren Buddhism to the people, one to the people of Japan and the other to the world at large.

I must admit the Komeito Party was a mistake on SG's part (seperation of church and state) but nevertheless it was dissolved and reformed into the New Komeito Party which is not under SG's auspices. Nevertheless SG and New Komeito share the same membership/grassroot base due to the old affliation.-Gammadion 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

New Komeito is just as much an extension of SG as was the old Komeito: All members of Komeito's leadership are SG members, some of them—such as Akihiro Ohta—famously so, as former head of the YMD and a fervent supporter of Daisaku Ikeda. Also, the only people who actively campaign for New Komeito are SG members, and SG members still believe (any public or official counterclaims by SG or Komeito itself notwithstanding) that they are furthering their Buddhist practice by supporting Komeito. Jersey_Jim 12:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but its not. First of all, most republicans - and most democrats, for that matter, are christians - does that mean they have some untoward relationship? Now, the Christian Coalition is one thing - but they are also flagrantly involved in financial support of candiates, as well as ideological support. Komeito is not financially bound or coneected to SGI. This has been shown, stated, proven, accepted even by the media which constantly puts the two together in every article they write. What is the difference between this and when the democratic party talk about the "black vote" for example, etc. Also, I don't believe that all members are from SG - I'll get you a cite, but I know I read somewhere that it is percentage - a high percentage, but still, a percentage. I need more sources for the claims you made here... - R --141.150.21.81 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Points of Contention

Are all these important? Whats the point Gammadion is driving at? At the end is still very much your own life you are affecting...look no one live your own life- it is up to you. Life is just too short to worry about or discuss about such subjective personal opinion things- its very much your own karma be it good or bad you are cultivating...anyway, you face death alone at the end. Can you folks be more constructive and do something more real on how to save life in disaster areas rather than dsicussing and arguing iover what SGI is. Afterall, it is an organisation that has proven its remarkable efforts in promoting peace, education and culture. All these are the collective efforts of the members in SGI around the world. We must be mindful as to whom we are addressing, don't just use the SGI in general if it was just one or a few person in your encounter you disagreed with. The world is not build only for you and you are not the world.

Good points all. And might I add that SGI has been very much involved with disaster relief for the Tsunami and for Katrina. - R --138.89.173.180 21:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the above author, you might want to sign your reponses, even if just by using your first initial, so we can distinguish between speakers and know what to call you. Or you can use the little signature icon at the top of yout dialog box, which will imprint your computer address, or you can join Wikipedia and register. -R--138.89.173.180 21:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be my life I am living, however, religion is a grouped belief in something. Next, I very much believe that comments from the public do have some value in reporting/journalism. Some views are from different people and aquiantances from different countries, mainly from the Asian region. Hence neutrality of an article is and must be respected. By the way, the article being discussed here is Soka Gakkai International, not ways of saving lives in a disaster. We can always start a new article on that and have a new discussion thread there. And once again, may I use an example on how SGI destroys culture which it so espouses: In South America, culture is also linked to its native religion. By promoting its version of Nichiren Buddhism, the native cultures of South American aborigines are being erased. I hoped that people will stopped stating that I am critizing without valid evidence, I will keep the main article clear of personal statements without proof but however, I will keep bring up topics that concern the public at large.06:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A little uncertain of where you are coming from here - its your life, etc., comments from the public, etc...Unless I missed sometihng these were not points on the table. But worst of all, you launch into another huge accusation about SGI and Brazil, and you ask that people stop criticizing you for not giving evidence?? Of course evidence is required. ANd if you have articles, books, anything to point to (credible and reliable, that is) it would be absolutely -appropriate to include it. I would be interested to read such matter myself. -R --138.89.151.226 08:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)--138.89.151.226 08:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am just stating my response to the first point of contention. As you can see, any unfavourable comments on SGI in Wikipedia has always been stamped out and replaced with words that discredit the reporter. I may have left a much disputed term for editing as at that moment I could not find a better term, please if anyone can find a neutral term for it, do an edit, if not, just leave it to better editors.

What do you mean "As you can see, any unfavourable comments on SGI in Wikipedia has always been stamped out and replaced with words that discredit the reporter. "? There seem to be plenty of viewpoints here both pro and con...But more than that, your comment seems to suggest that only those people who think like you are valid. I don't think that is fair or true...

(By the way, how do I flag an article for editing?)If the public have negative comments on SGI Singapore(SSA), Malaysia(SGM),Thailand (SGThailand), Taiwan (SGTaiwan) doctrinal issues, then the public who put up the complaints are critics even they can number up to hundreds or thousands of people interviewed? I have corresponded with 30 persons electronically or personally who have unfavourable comments in regards to SGI doctrines in their countries and they had brought up incidents of their kin or friends who are dismissive of SGI(numbers coming close to 109).

Then I guess that shows that those people who don't like it are more likely to write about it than those who do. Because, like it or not, there are still millions of people who seem to think this organization is a very good one. Just because they don't also feel the need to make their views known on Wikipedia or elsewhere, doesn't mean they don't exist. People with gripes always make more noise than people who are satisfied. That said, notice that when people do speak favorably, your position seems to be to discount them anyway. So its really a no win situation for people who do like the organiztion - if they speak up they are considered loony culitists - but if they don't then the voices of the disgruntled are given an unfair advantage. Can't win...

And the last thing, R, when in hell did I bring up the country Brazil in conjunction with SGI? I only mentioned South America as a whole region as certain parts are Catholic, others are mostly shamanistic and a small portion of other religions mixed in. The cultures there have always been a motley mix at best,eg. animnism and so on, due to their religions.

A mistake to mention Brazil - must have been a lapse - I meant South America. But at any rate, the real religious tyranny, in any, and all of those countries and regions, hardly comes from SGI.

As stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, religions are linked to the culture of a country, if SGI wants to give peace, culture and education a try, then SGI better not talk about religion. But in this way, SGI will be in a paradox, as its central pillar is Nichiren Buddhism.

SGI isn't forcing anyone to practice Nichiren Buddhism - people choose to practice it. That is the big difference between other religions and this one. Its 12 million practitioners did not come on board because a nation, a government, and a religious institution imposed their religion upon a people under threat of violence, hell and brimstone. People choose this religion. Within their country, within a culture, individuals of that culture truly decide for themselves whether or not to embrace it. Generally, they choose it because it is a religion of hope and acceptance. Not everyone does, though, and so what if they don't. Although Nichiren Buddhism as practied by SGI believes it is a religion that is for and of the people, it does not in any way intend, need, or desire, to force itself upon people. Notice, Nichiren did not go around trying to force people to listen to him - he simply made his arguments, strongly, and three times. He dialoged with the nation's instruments of government, with the priesthood, and with the people. Some people agreed with him and decided to practice alongside him. The rest did not, so, he left them to their devices. This is NOT in any way comparable to other religions for the very fact that it is the only one that actually spread as a natural result of people's own authentic experience, out of their own desire, from their own inner dialog and reflection, and as a result of dialog and exchange of ideas, with other people. That, my friend, is what a religion that truly embraces peace, culture, and education looks like.

Then the part about culture in the peace, culture and education can be removed for all SGI's purpose. Question is not about SGI's forcing people to follow its religious belief but the contradiction the organisation presents to the public.Gammadion 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't get your argument. "Culture" in "peace culture and education" refers to the practice of learning about other cultures, learning to appreciate and respect other cultures, and most importantly, learning to build bridges across cultures, so that people from different cultures can also learn to live more harmoniously with one another, because of developed tolerance, respect and undersatanding across cultures. SGI as many intercultural and bilingual conferences and divisions. And regularly puts on various celebrations of different cultures. How do you see this as in conflict with SGIs purposes? -R

Back to the part on forcing religion on people, I have heard cases of SGI indoctrinating children of followers on Nichiren Buddhism in some countries. (Problem now is that I don't have enough resources to pursue authencity of this hearsay.) Such religious indoctrination on young children will create religious prejudice of people from other religions, more so in a multi-religious society. In a multi-religious society which practices freedom of religion, children are given a chance to learn about religions other than their family's own and making an informed choice which to follow. Such a society would not try to muddy the minds of children without letting the children make their own informed choices.202.156.6.54 08:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, "I have heard of cases" is not reputable, authoritative, or anything that we can really deal with. You don't know what countries, the circumstances... Making claims like that without some kind of citation is really unfair and difficult to address.

But, I can address your use of language. Your use of terms like "indoctrinate" betrays you. I mean, are you against teaching reigions to children period? Or do you think they should just go to all of them and then choose? How/who decides where they should getthis kind of multiculti religious introduction? They get some of it in school alraady, and I imagine most kids know some basices, Christmas, Easter, Hanukkah, Ramadan for exampe. Or, is it just Buddhists teaching their kids their religion that you don't like? I mean, do you also consider Sunday School to be an "indoctrination?" Bottom line is that all religions have children practitioners. In most religions, the children follow the practice that their parents practice. It is no diffrent here.

And finally, how do you jump to the conclusion that kids who practice Buddhism will develop "religious prejudice?" How do you come to the conclusion that this is "especially true in a multi-religious society?" How do you come to the conclusion that these kids don't get the chance to make an informed decision of their own? These are huge leaps you are making... - R --70.111.52.102 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you an standard example given to me by a former YMD leader: "In terms of religious philosophy, there are two main ideas. First, is that people seek salvation outside of themselves.(ie, Christianity, Islam, worshipping of Buddhist idols) Second, such as in Nichiren Buddhism, which allows people to achieve salvation by themselves. By the self-determination of one's salvation, one will assuredly gain salvation as there is no external factors affecting one from gaining salvation. Wherelse on the other hand, there will always be an external factor(God,Allah) for people who seek salvation outside of themselves and thus salvation is not assured. Outside of the two above mentioned models of religion, there cannot be another model."As far as I can see, this is a delibrate muddying of waters. Firstly being the children's idea of belief is delibrately moded according to the two modes of religious philosophy. Second is that there can not be any other forms of religion other than the two mentioned above. If you don't consider this as prejudice than what pray can I address it as? Given this piece of advice at a young age(at primary level of education), I would say this is an indoctrination. How about I give you the region which this example is often cited 90% of the time? South-East Asia.Anyway, its good that people are answering my questions with good answers.Gammadion 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't really speak to what one person said to you - I would suggest that you ask many different people for their perspectives on this issue - even write Dr. Ikeda himself! If nothing else, this is most definately a practice that invites and encourages people to ask questions, entertain and address your doubts -- but don't stop there - keep talking about it! Keep asking! The only thing I can say is that I suspect he was trying to give you a simple answer to a complex question. The other part is this: if that IS indoctrination, as you call it, then so is everything else in life - we learn by the experineces we have, the peole we are surrounded by, and the ideas and ways of life they live. We may go to Sunday School Catechism, Hebrew Shool or an Islamic Fundamentalist Training Camp -- or maybe just to believe only in pure science and the rationality and the rational and intelligent mind -- everyone is going to learn to believe in something, somewhere, somehow. I ask you - if you had to choose between them, which one would be the better one in the long run, for you, and for everybody else in the world? - Ruby--68.45.57.193 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoh, Ruby, I would really suggest you stop questioning my motives. The truth hurts and let's admit that. If I could only get a public census on SGI in my country, it's at most tolerated. When I asked senior MD leaders questions about public knowledge buddhist philosophy as a YMD, I recieved orders to shut up. Even in my own cohort of YMD leaders, there were many who choose to leave SGI as they believe that SGI is indeed indoctrinating youths. When you want to draw reference to a Protestant Sunday School, they do ask if you do believe in God, if not, they allow you to leave on your own accord. I don't see that happening in SGI, any and all detractors are referred to as Slanderers of the Law.Anyway, I choose to believe in science and facts.--Gammadion 21:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Gammadion? (BTw I think the spelling is "Yo," sans the "h". Not cool. Really...) at any rate, how am I questioning your motives? I am simply asking why and how you jump to the conclusions you do. I question the language you choose to use, since you are striving to become neutral, it dosen't make sense to use inflammatory, baited terms like "indoctrinate". "Teach" or "share" is more neutral, and still conveys your message that the principals and practices are being passed down to younger children. - R--70.111.52.102 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ruby, I hope you don't mind reading this paragraph that I prepared. I don't jump to conclusions that I have, I just simply witness the incident and follow up reporting on it. The words that I used may or may not be appropriate but nevertheless I felt that they are true to the sense of the topic I am reporting on. The word "indoctrinate" is indeed a strong word but then again I am asking for a neutral truthful article, not a word. The words "teach" and "share" are thus not appropriate for the purpose at hand. To quote from within an article in Wikipedia:"indoctrination teaches the doctrina that structures a subject, as observed from within, whereas educatio(to teach) literally "leads out" from a subject, one that is being dispassionately observed from without." Religious teachings are one matter but if SGI supports religious freedom, then it should not muddy the waters by modding the minds of children that only 2 forms of religious philosophy exist and that only SGI's Nichiren Buddhism is the only correct form. What else can I call this except religious indoctrination?Gammadion 05:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gammadian - one, use a real source. Unfortunately, in spite of all my efforts, Wikipedia is sinking, and it isn't really a reliable source for your argument. If you use the AMerican Heritage Dictionary, indoctrinate means: 1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. 2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

Teach means: TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To impart knowledge or skill to: teaches children. 2. To provide knowledge of; instruct in: teaches French. 3. To condition to a certain action or frame of mind: teaching youngsters to be self-reliant. 4. To cause to learn by example or experience: an accident that taught me a valuable lesson. 5. To advocate or preach: teaches racial and religious tolerance. 6. To carry on instruction on a regular basis in: taught high school for many years.

In this case, "teach" seems more appropriate to me. FIrst, there is no going out and getting of children in order to "imbue with a partisan or ideological view." A religious perspective is not an "ideology." (American Heritage: Ideology: NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. i·de·ol·o·gies 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. " and Religions: NOUN: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.)And maybe I should add, and ideology is also not a philosophy ( AMerican Heritage: NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. phi·los·o·phies 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life "

Two: "I just simply witness the incident and follow up reporting on it. The words that I used may or may not be appropriate but nevertheless I felt that they are true to the sense of the topic I am reporting on." To this I say this: American Heritage : Jump: 4. To form an opinion or judgment hastily: jump to conclusions. Need I say more? Peace! - Ruby --70.21.220.149 08:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Next, up to now, no one have answered why is my earlier critism of SGI's conflicting Charter of respecting freedom of religion and its religious doctrine considered worst ever.

I think what I said above addresse it, but I'll add the following in a new section:

On Religious Freedom and SGI