Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Criticism

Is there any need to repeat the same information that appears on Daisaku Ikeda?? this way it looks like mr. Ikeda is the cherry on top of SGI's cake. And again the useless list of awards. It's not neutral and this article is getting a biased, propaganda like definition of SGI. Specially in the last couple of days, the Criticism went from a criticism to biblical apology, please please please I know it's hard to be objective and that this is your faith but you can't post something on criticism that repeats what is written on Doctrine!!! It does not make any sense. An wikipedia article is not a vehicle for any faith, even if it's "true" buddhism. There are links that point to the official SGI sites so if someone likes or is into this buddhism he can get the pure form doctrine from there, wikipedia can't be a place to disseminate any Dogma because it's for the sake of information, and neutral information, not biased!


I disagree - this is a discussion area, and sometimes, you can't be neutral unless you have discussed whatever the thing is -- in this case, its the"dogma" as you put it, behind this organization. Part of the inability for people to remain neutral is because they do not really understand the topic. That is the point of discussion, I thought. SO why don't we let the people who know what they are talking about and have opinions, hash out their differences so they can come up with mutually acceptable review? Remember, what you ar ecalling dogma is not static -- at least not in this religion.-KPMP
It isn't static? How can a dogma not be static? I'm confused here. My criticism is/was about clarity in the article, all the awards and books and propaganda doesn't inform properly. Not the detractors and also not the supporters of SGI-Nichiren Buddhism, it's just noise.

Yes I agree with you, let's discuss, but let's find a common platform to do so, and a one clear of rubbish. --P- 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. I was speaking to this point: "Criticism went from a criticism to biblical apology, please please please I know it's hard to be objective and that this is your faith but you can't post something on criticism that repeats what is written on Doctrine!!! " I thought you were referring to the Discussion Area of this page - where we re right now. I think this Discussion area IS the appropriate arena for addressing whatever needs to be addressed in order for people to come to a mutually satisfying review. Now, I think you must have meant in the actual article itself -- is that right?
My point about "dogma" is that it is not the same as in, say, a church, where there are rules precepts guidelines etc applied, which everyone must follow. This particular religion IS unusual because it does not have that kind of a static set of rules. I was at a meeting about Buddhism and Birht and Death, where the discussion was about Buddhists position on abortion, euthanasia and the like - and there was NO ONE ANSWER. This religion, unlike others, does NOT provide a fixed doctrine, other than to say you must work this out for yourself.Now, if that is not what you meant by "dogma" then, forgive me, I'm just not getting it. Try me again...But then again, I think this mix up is another example of why it is useful to have this space to discuss these things, and why I think at least in the case of this religion, it is unavoidable that we discuss such matters...Otherwise, we're writign about a topic without an appreciation for what we are writing about...I hope you get my distinction...

On Dogma and Ok, this Nichiren religion has a low intensity to neutral on moral tabus like «abortion, euthanasia and the like» that hasn't anynithing to do with dogma or a dogmatic doctrine. A short example of dogma is the impossibility of a catholic to question the origin of god in contradiciton to the implicit given that it's their supreme entity and has always been here so the birth of god could be considered dogma.

No. It is absolutely NOT a "low intensity to neutral on moral tabus" at all! In fact, it is very strict. Much more so than any reigion I know of. There is no "seeking salvation" or "being forgiven" or "confessing our sins" or "being absolved." The difference is that in Nichiren Buddhism, there is no one authority that dictates what is right or wrong, or will tell you what to think or what to believe -- except to know that all life is absolutely precious and valuable, all life is worthy of respect. Yet, every life also has its own karma. The simple, objective, impartial judge is karma. And as the saying goes, "karma is a b---."
You and you alone are responsible for the choices you make and the consequences you bear. In this Buddhism, life is considered the ultimate most precious thing, something to be honored and protected. But this Buddhism is not dogmatic - it does not insist or pretend that there are absolute rights and wrongs, absolute circumstances. It DOES insist, though, that you understand and accept, that if you make your bed, no if ands or butts, you WILL lie in it.
This makes it a completely different (and refreshing, in my view) way of religion. It is absolute. Absolutely unforgiving. And because it is unforgiving, it is also absolutely non-judgemental.
Check out this book - it is amazing: Life: An Enigma, A Precious Jewel (English Edition, Kodansha International, 1982) Daisaku Ikeda. "In this book Ikeda investigates, from a Buddhist perspective, the great life force inherent in the universe as it works in the context of daily human activities, also probing the link between the Buddhist worldview and the empirical deductions of science"
In my view, this is where Christianity (and other religions) get hung up -- they insist on dictating inflexible moral codes - yet then they turn around and make exceptions all over the place, and then have to twist themselves inside out to try to justify them. No abortion - but send young men and women to their death in a questionable war, and bomb the hell out of people who did you no harm. Capital Punishment is ok - but there's no educational or economic support for the unwanted, unloved child that is born only because the young mother and father believed a priest who said it was sinful to abort and that they would go to hell if the did. When that kid grows up to be a crazy heartless bastard, then, then its ok to kill him, because now, the Pope or some other religious figure or some government official who thinks he knows God intimately, says its ok. How does any of that teach a person to be a happy, responsible, caring, loving person? How does that help a person to make a right decision just because it is RIGHT? - KPMP
Daisaku Ikea says of dogma, from The New Human Revolution, Vol 1, pg. 42,: " Some religions exist for the people, others exist only for the sake of religion. Religions for the sake of religion descends into dogmatism, ultimately binding and enlslaving people in the name of faith. As a result, people are deprived of their spiritual freedon, and common sense and humanity are denied, deepening the rift between religion and society.... Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism is a religion that exists for the people, aiming to bring about a flowering of humanity in each person." It sounds like you and Dr. Ikeda agree...

Want to see an Nichiren Buddhism dogma? Just ask yourself or in a reunion if you can attain enlightenement without chanting Nam-Myo-Rengue-Kyo, the answer I'll be no. Why? Because that is what the Daishonin expounded, and if you do not believe that, well, no Buddhahood on this lifetime. Isn't there any other way?NO?

I thought I had answered this already...In any case, my answer is three fold: first of all "dogma" is not all bad. What makes it bad is when it is taken unquestioningly, regardless of time poce and ircumstance. Second, a practice of chanting is not "dogma" - it is an excercise, just like meditation, yoga, prayer itself. Heck, just about any old thing, like doing ten situps and 20 pushups a day will build strength and muscle, or eating less than 1200 calories a day will caue you to lose weight, or reading the NYT every day will probably improve your vocabulary and your understanding of world events. Or how about how turning on a light switch turns on the lights, or clapping your hands turns them off if you have The Clapper, or turning a key in a car ignition will start the engine, or dropping a feather from a height dropping to the ground -- these are not "dogma." Chanting Nam myo ho renge kyo, for whatever reason, more often than not, helps people to help themselves. That is not "dogma." R--70.111.52.102 05:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
As for attaining enlightenment, perhaps the problem is with the idea of "attaining" it. I don't believe enlightenment is something you attain and then that is it -- You Are Now and Forever Afer Enlightened. Ahhh! No. It is an active state of being - like being "in the zone." We always have the potential to experience this state -- but whether you will, how much of the time you will spend in that state, depends on how much you practice. Like anything else in life. The more you practice, the better you become.

Another dogma, debating the semantics, better yet, the mystical value of the mantra Nam-Myo-Rengue-Kyo ie. why are the words spoken in that particular language, has that language a mystical cause and effect? If so what are the proofs of this and how can we determine if they are not random events? Do other languages have a similar proprietry? Is it the sound? If the gohonzon is a mirror of my life why has it to be written in a language I don't understand? shouldn't it be writen in a universal way being it a representation of a so called universal mystical law? Does this mean that this language has mystical propreties? If so how can this be proved?

But what would BE a universal way in your view -- English? If you consider that no matter where you go in the world, people who practice this faith all say the same phrase, and all share the same understanding of its meaning, it seems that Nam Myoho renge Kyo IS the "universal way."

You can't make this questions because you'll end up questioning the faith itself like I have, and believe me this is a very short version of my discussion points with no answer from SGI members apart from some «heart» arguments... yes and faith supposedly comes from the "heart". While I do enjoy a level of metaphor I can only take so much in all of my kalpas. I've been through all of this before. I have doubts about everything and it's very hard to argue with a person that claims something to be true without a method only relying on belief, faith or worst gullability.

It is so odd. According to SGI, faith in Nichiren Buddhism is explained as follows:
"Faith --Traditionally, religion has asked its believers to have faith in its tenets before accepting the religion, without any proof of the religion's assertions. But how can we have faith in something with which we have no experience? Unless a religion can provide benefit to the believers' daily lives and help them overcome their struggles, they cannot become happy by practicing it. Today, many religions lack the ability to truly empower people to change.
In [Nichiren] Buddhism, faith is based on experience. Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism emphasizes obtaining "actual proof" of the teaching's power. Faith begins as an expectation or hope that something will happen. At the start of our journey, if we are willing to try the practice and anticipate some result, we will then develop our faith brick by brick as examples of actual proof accrue.''" - SOURCE: SGI USA

And it's all the same to me really, a Catholic is not different from a Buddhist because the problem isn't what you believe in, it's the believing itself and trying hard that your choice be the perfect scale for what your eyes see in an exercise of self inflicted miopia. Can't bend the world? Bend the thought. If, and if only, a Catholic praying really hard and being really comited to the prayer and having only good thoughts do you think the mystical whatever he generates is diferent from a buddhist just because of a diferent text book or a diferent ritual? We mustn't forget that wemade all of this games, the language and the high spirited notion of valuewe embed on words. Can someone, please explain what Faith is? [don't answer I beg you] --P- 04:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think prayer in any form IS really very different, actually, from one religion to the next, in many respects. Just like an apple will fall to the ground, whether we know what gravity is, believe that it exists, or not, the fact is, gravity is an observalbe phenomenon - a law - that exists in our 3D world and does not deviate from its truth. Things fall down to earth, and it happens whether or not we understand it, whether or not we call it by the right name, and whether or not we even believe in it, or have "faith" in it. It just happens.
But equally true, until we called gravity by the right name, and came to deepen our understandning of its principles -- how it workled, why it worked, how it worked under varying circumstances, - until then, we were limited in our ability to master this tremendous naturaly force. If we had not come to understand gravity, we would never have been able to break free of it and fly to the moon.
The law of "myoho renge kyo" -- the "mystic law of cause and effect" exists - it makes itself felt, whether we know it, understand it, or call it by the right name, or not. Even if you believe in nothing, there will be moments in which you experience an incredible harmony, when just the right thing happens at just the worhgt moment, or just the person you need shows up at just the moment you most need him/her. If you practice any kind of prayer, or even if you just live compassionately, etc., there will be an effect in your life -- but will you really understand how or why it happened? Will you have any insight into how you can effect this kind of change? Will yyou have any ability to harness this great "mystic" poewer to your own advantage? No, of course not. Indeed, if you are reading the wrong texbook, it certainly CAN have an effect on your understanding of the principle, and therefore, an effect on the consequences you experinece in your life.
In the practice of Nichiren Buddhism, the explanation of what happens when you pray depends on whether or not your prayer is also able to activate the power that is within you to affect change in your environment. If you don't understand the relationship between you and your environment, the success of our prayer is unpredictable to a certain extent. When you do correctly understand this relationship, you are better able to effect the outcomes. Just like understanding graity or the relationship of time, matter and energy revolutionezed science and enables us to make incredible breakthgouths and progress in our understanding of the world. so can the study and practice of this faith have incredible breakthroughs for humanities ability to effect the individual, the society, and the world at large...
Personally, I don't think it is a coincidence that in the Bible, it says "God helps those who help themselves" This is simply another way of expressing what Nichiren is talking about. But because too frequently, people give over this power to GOd,a priest, a pope - and the emphasis shifts to "What is God going to do?" rather than, "How can i harness my own innate wisdom, compassion and power (or some might say the "God within") in order to have an effect that I want in my life and in my environment?" I believe that Jesus very much understood the truth of life and the mystic law -- he tried to communcate it - look at the Gospels of Thomas - but his message got distored, and people have been walking around with half the textbook, and using it to justify having wars, taking over nations and killing milions of people, building empires, etc., all with only a partial understandning -- the part that suited the power structure.
Listen, no one is trying to tell you you have to accept or believe anything. But for those who do, these are worthwhile discussions and debates. As for Nichiren dogma, in fact, it is possible to attain Buddhahood without chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. There are many people -- Martin Luther King, Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, for example, who have obviously manifested their Buddha nature. SGI points to these and many more as examples all the time. I really think a lot of your perspective is due to misinformation about what the religion is really about. But like I said, if you don't like it, or believe in it, that's your perogative. But don't crap on people who do.
As for the language, I imagine your concern with that comes from the old Catholic fear about speaking in tongues and all of that stuff (at least that is usually the case when I have heard this point raised - forgive me if I am wrong in your case). Honestly, there are translations available if you want them at SGI and many other places, if it is that important to you. But again, I think your concern stems from a misunderstanding -- no noe asserts that these words hold some magical quality. It isn't like you say them and them its like Open Says Me! everything magiaclly changes. Chanting is a discipline, a form of meditation, wherein through the excercise of chanting, you are awakened to your own deepest wisdom - your Buddha Nature, if you will. This phrase is what is used during this type of meditation. What you are asking is like saying Why does Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass have to be in English? WHy in just those particular words? or some such thing. It is what it is! The question is, why can't you just let it be what it is?
I could go on and give you a long(er) winded answer, etc., etc., but it doesn't really matter. The name of somthing is its name. That's it. You don't call "Bob" "Joe" just because you don't understand or like the name Bob. YOu don't call "America" "Swaziland" because they are not the same thing. Names have meaning and the word itself carries the meaning of the thing. There really is no mystery in that.
As for "proof,", well, once again, I have to say I think you were miseducated. In fact, of all the religions I have come across - and there have been a few - this is the ONLY one that doesn't expect you to just goout on blind faith. Its try it and see. Prove it to yourself. Period. Obviously, it seems to work for a lot of people. Maybe its just not for you. And that's fine. Enjoy your life. Butlet the rest of the world enjoy theirs as they see fit, as well.- KPMP --151.198.99.71 20:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I was miseducated, my my isn't that condescending.
Not trying to be condescending, but if you feel that I was, I apologize. Just trying to explain that your interpretation is just really different from mine.
I've read the translations and I've studied the gohonzon. I have read the whoping Lotus Sutra and the Gosho. And that sad excuse for literature and poetry that Mr.Ikeda prints.

You took my questions and provocation a bit to literally, I wasn't serious enough. «Martin Luther King, Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, for example, who have obviously manifested their Buddha nature.» Jesus and Martin somewhat elude me as enlightned people, but I'm more concerned with the obviously in your sentence. We don't share the same view of the world, you must have noticed it by now.

What I mean is that they lived in ways that accord with descriptions of what it is to be in a state of Buddhahood, or "enlightenment." That is, they were human, but they also seemed capable of expressing and embracing all of humanity, of speaking to its better nature (its Buddha nature,I'd say). They all were capable of great compassion -- and also were firm in their conviction to justice. But not just because it was unfair to those who were oppressed - but because it was also unfair and harmful to those who were the oppressors. They understood the oneness of everything, and all of us, and they strove to bring us all to that level of awareness. They understood "karma" whether they used the word or not, perhaps using the Golden RUle instead, for example. But the meaning is the same. And so being a Buddha is really nothing less than this - and nothing more. As Nichiren said in " The Wealthy Man Sudatta" (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, pp 1086-87) :
" The way to become a Buddha easily is nothing special. It is the same as giving water to a thirsty person in a time of drought, or as providing fire for a person freezing in the cold. Or again, it is the same as giving another something that is one of a kind, or as offerring something as alms to another even at the risk of one's life."
Now, other forms of Buddhism may disagree on this point, and I don't speak for them. But in Nichiren Buddhism (as practicedby SGI), and in the Shakyumuni's Lotus Sutra, upon which Nichiren based his life and his teaching, everyone has the same capacity for enlightenment, indeed it is inherent within all of us, equally. It is just a matter of activating that aspect of ourselves. We do it anyway, from time to time, because it exists within us. - R--70.111.52.102 05:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Its not something you are going to get by reading - it must be practiced and experienced. How can you know what it is to meditate, to love, to hate, just by reading about it? It is the combination of studying, as well as discussion - but most important, experiencing for yourself that brings understanding. But like I said, if you aren't interested in "experiencing" no problem! But it's really not cool how you put down other people's beliefs like this, and to expect your personal experinece to be taken as authority.
Sorry but I think you are wrong there, not all knoledge needs to be attained out of experience, there are plenty of examples flying arround the world that prove my point.
But I didn't say that "all knowledge needs to be attained out of experience." I said THIS kind of knowledge you can gain by reading, up to a point. But then to really understand it, ulitmately, you need the experience of it -- like you can read all you want about driving a car or performing open heart surgery or getting into "the zone" while playing golf - but to get it, you have to experience it.
And I did chant to try it out. But I'm just empty of faith or I can't tap into that must be my rationalism that prevents me form it. I honestly do not know.
Maybe you haven't been able to thus far - but that doesn't mean you can't. If you haven't guessed by now, I am also a person tied to my "rational" mind -- it took me many years and several different encounters, with several different people, as well as a LOT of reading and research, (using reliable, reputable "outside resources", as well as going to the source itself, of course!) before I was able to feel comfortable enough to try for the experience. I'd gotten it intellectually, long before. But until I really gave it a sincere effort - and that did not come without my questionning EVERYTHING you have questioned, and probably more! -- not until then did I really begin to understand -and everyday, I learn more.
It's not about being cool or not, I respect that a person has a faith, believes in it and all but I have above all to respect myself and to speak up what I think a waste of time and missrepresentaition of reality through all that wishfull thinking that faith gives to people.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." That is what I thought too. But this is not the same kind of religion. This is something very different. And that is what is so great about it - and, that is what makes it so misunderstood, and so mistrusted.
I'll give an example: SGI is promoting peace in the world through some activities like an intenerary hiroshima expo that I got a glimpse of in Glasgow, the horrors of the explosions, all that mess we all know of, very good pictures and nicely laid out exhibit. Some MLK texts, some Einstein, a bit of Ikeda here and there in bigger sizes [he does look good on an Italian suit I grant that in a scale of 1:1] a lot of D. Ikeda books [human and new human revs] other SGI publications, peace peace peace all over the place right? Not one thing is given about economy, causes of war, exective power, how democracy works, why do we still produce weapons... yeah cause and effect, we have to change from the inside and it has to be a deep change from everyone, one person at the time, eventually all the world will be in a peace state and probably enlightened-Buddahood übermensch.
Nothing worthwhile is easy. And in this case, what choice do we have? Give up? Let it all go to hell? Or stay the same? Those are choices. Another is to TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Here, the "promise" is simple - you keep going on like you are, and you'll keep getting the same results. Very 12 step - but true nonetheless. On the other hand, if you really take to heart the Truth that every single great sage, prophet, or whatever has said, you can change things. Many different religions and philosophies talk about this - but the only one I have come across that actually seems to have a real plan and actually gets real results -- is this one.
As for what they have to say about economies etc., I would direct you to some of their publications and videos. For instance:
  • A Quiet Revolution -about how local people make enormous changes that affect their environment and local economy
  • SGI Quarterly Current issue - Issues address all manner of economic issues, etc.
  • SGI Quarterly Past Issues - on all manner of issues you raised
  • Ikeda's Peace Proposals - past and present, in which he addresses all manner of problems of our world, with an eye towards opening dialog, promoting new ideas and solutions, new approaches to old problems, etc.
"Many people have been pondering the question of whether any form of dialogue or engagement is possible with those who remain hidden behind the veil of anonymity. What can people of good will do, how are they to respond to ruthless, cold-blooded acts

of evil?"

Then how does that Kosen Rufu go? with the world in thirds right? Does SGI really believe in this? Or is it metaphorical? Because if it's really their proposal for world peace then I hope it's the third world that get's the opposing faction because if it's a mixed world of supporters, believers and detractors we will have blood like always. Come to think of it the Roman Catholic Church also started out as a love based faith, well, Jesus whom you claim to have reached Buddahood did some very powerfully bloody statem

ents and also [if he exhisted] some beating up. But I digress.

My interpretation of this is that world peace CAN exist when the majority of people (2/3) have a humanistic attitude, and are actively striving to build a more humanistic world, through the way they live, through the way the vote, through the way they educate themselves, etc. But this is not a guarantee - it is a goal a vision a dream. But remember, many horrible acts of man have held sway over society, and have been considered unchangeable realities at one time or another. But eventually, they DID change. Without blood? Perhaps not. But if blood is to be shed, let it be for the bettterment of us all (as opposed to the betterment of Bush, Haliburton, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, for instance. Sorry. COuldn't resist)
Personally, and call me naive if you want to, but in my mind, if 2/3rds of the world were to evolve to this kind of mentality/spirituality/activism, it is hard to imagine that the 1/3 would have enough power to force the rest of the world to change its ways. I mean, heck, only 1/10th of the world (or less) is responsible for all this crap we've got going on now! And the only reason they get away with it is because the great majority of us have let them - because we haven't individually or collectively made the committment to really stand up. And look at it - whenever there has ever been a great change or rise in society for the betterment of all, it has rarely come from that powerful minority -- it has come because the masses of people have finally, finally stood up and committed to making and demanding that change. As long as we just keep sitting around playing with our playstations and clicking the channels, caring more about a stained blue dress than a lyin' treasonous dog that steals money out yer back pocket while preaching you the gospel, and as long as we keep sittin around feeling smug and secure, blowing smoke out o' ar pseudo-intellectual arses, guess what - that 1/10th has already won, and will keep on winning -- until they do enough damage to get that incredibly complacent mass of flesh to finally get up off the couch and wake the heck up!
This practice is all about developing this kind of inner fortitude, courage and wisdom. Instead of thinking that we can find peace by meditating under a tree, by ourselves, and for ourselves alone, this Buddhism says no, peace must be built and constructed. It is not about winning the war through force or intimidation - it is about the long haul, for as long as it takes to do it peacefully, brick by brick, person by person -- a "war of the mind" paraphrasing Ikeda from a recent speech, fought with the voice, the pen, and the computer keyboard. What does it matter if it is won in your lifetime or not? The question is, did you try to do your part or not? And then again, if you are a Buddhist, it does matter -- because if you haven't done your part in this lifetime, you'll pay for it in the next anyway. So, you might as well fight the better fight now. And imagine - maybe, just maybe, if enough people decided to also take the stand now, when we all come back we will come back to a better place. Now THERE'S a kindd of heaven I'd like to believe in, since I have the choice.
My forecast is that after Ikeda's death, his sun takes over but SGI will have the biggest saint ever and will start be less and less a roots movement to became much more incorporated with the mainstream [it has been quite connivent with power, economical and state wise, this in Japan of course] Their universities will also play a great role on this, and the indoctrination process will grow, and not even the demented scientology will be able to compete. Why am I telling you this? Oh, yeah religion is a big bussiness and not all of it is about profit, most of it is about growth with no expenses and SGI, I tell you is brilliant in the tupperware model... incedentally did you remember mr.Toda in Human Revolution, what did he start doing? A publishing bussiness, that is right! English learning books [this is the post war japan]. If you want you can start scanning arround the web for their assets.--P- 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
That's a grim forecast. Maybe you will be right. Only time will tell. But I will tell you one thing - next to overcoming the "excommunication," Ikeda's passing will be the greatest challenge to Nichiren's and Shakyamuni's vision ever. Imagine, just imagine if instead, of your sad vision, it all just continued growing. People just kept on chanting, practicing, studying, helping each other out, helping themselves UP, getting stronger, healthier, and happier, and more activated, and more peace loving, and less violent, and more actively vocal, and more demanding of their government, and less prone to blind faith, and more demanding and questioning of authority, and better and better at communicating and having dialog, and more and more able to tolerate and understnad and appreciate each other...Whoa. What a nightmare, eh? But if you can't see that, then just look at it historically -- after Toda died, people missed him, but they didn't make him into a saint - they just continued striving to realize the vision that he carried, and that he received from Makiguchi, which Makiguchi got from Nichiren, and that he got from Shakyamuni. Or after the "excommunication" - that should have killed it -- but it didn't. Instead, SGI has grown more than ever. Something is just not right here, be, P.? Could it be...that it actually...is not so dangerous after all? That it actually works? What if instead, everyone actually got it? Wow! Another dream I don't mind choosing.
But in all seriousness, maybe the real question is not what if that happens, but rather "how would I feel if it happened? What if I gave my all to this, and allowed myself to believe in it, and then it turned out to be just another sham? What then? I'd feel like a broken hearted idiot! Worse, a fool! Everyone would laugh at me!" I say to you "'tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all." Some things are worth the risk. But, even better, if this practice really is correct, it won't happen as you have predicted. It has built in failsafes to prevent it from imploding. I believe it would simply disintegrate into nothingness before it would become the opposite of itself. Just my opine. -Ruby --70.111.52.102 07:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


«But again, I think your concern stems from a misunderstanding» that's wishful thinking, and I might be wrong in a lot of ways I give you that, but I'm surely not wrong in the origin of my own concerns. I tell you over and over that I have given thought to this thing because I have reasons to do so. I've even layed out some of them here in a coherent way. I'm not totally deprived of my reason. It's not just my perogative, this concerns other people, it affects me and those I love deeply.

I will not leave things as they are because I do not like and will never be connivent with deception, fallacy and arrogance and lies.

At that point, I didn't realize I was speaking with the same person. But again, I apologize if you feel that I am being condescending. It is just strange that our experiences are so different...Just trying to understand... But trust me, though, I could not ever wish for someone to live in misunderstanding - that would be cruel. I am sure you don't mean it literally, and I understnad that in speaking to me, it is like you are speaking to whomever or whatever hurt you - but I am not that. Please, don't confuse me with whatever whoever it is you don't like. You don't even know me.
I know that I'm agressive in my writing and as a person also. I have come to accept that. I assure you that I'm not targetting you but the faith itself. I wish that people would be free that is all.
Look, I never wrote anything about magic, I've always used mystical and that is quite different. I understand the concepts of Nicheren Buddhism, let it be clear to you that I do. I think it's a fallacy what he expounded and I think it's a fallacy to continue spreading it. Yes you can attain buddhood doing it, you can for sure. You can also attain buddahood trainspoting or gardening or doing Medical assistance in africa for free or if you are in to it fishing marlins. Inumerous people attained buddahood or enlightnemet or inner peace or whatever since the begining of time, and without being prosyletized into it. Just like you don't need sweetner or sugar for your coffee to experience a good coup of it. It's something that you add up.
You are absolutely right, and I thought that was what I just said - that everyone can attain and does atain Buddhahood. Some people live it - like I said before, MLK, Gandhi, Jesus, for example. Others of us fall in and out, in the ways you described. YOu know about the 10 worlds, right? So you should know that everyone of us moves in and out of these states all the time, and some of us inhabit one or the other more freqquently thatn others... All this practice can do is to help you become more aware and conscious of yourself, and to develop your capacity to live your life in a more engaged way, and to live to your highest potential, on a more consistant basis.
Yes I know of the 10 worlds, but the human creature is much more complex than that descriptive taxonomy of human states. genetics and environment are two of the most important factors, and hell, the genetic itself is mindboggling. Cause and effects fails to interpret this myriad of events. There are no consequences for some actions sometimes they just tend to inertia or a gloomy entropy. Nichiren Buddhism ignores this. It's to linear, does not take into account momentum and observing momentum. «..All this practice can do is to help you become more aware and conscious of yourself, and to develop your capacity to live your life in a more engaged way, and to live to your highest potential, on a more consistant basis.» Sometimes I speak with people from SGI and all I get is a reduced lexicon of words like: Fantastic, Determination, Shakubuku, Victory, Great and other stuff I can't translate right now, but it his very reduced, it makes me think of newspeak out of 1984. Some friends of mine even refuse some of my expressions because they are too negative. --P- 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I've met members of SGI in Brasil, France, Italy, Great-Britain and not one of them started chanting because he desired deeply to become enlightened or reach a state of buddahood, they all instead started out during very difficult periods of their lives and someone told them about it out of their good nature [Not beeing in anyway sarcastic here, ok?].
I didn't answer all your comments in the other message from the other article, but I thouyght about it. Maybe I should answer them since you have raised the point in both places. You should know, if you understand the practice, that people begin from wherever they are - many people do begin, coming from a hellish state - most of them are only seeking material gains. But many, many, more, expecially nowadays, it seems, come seeking understanding, and a better way of living, a happier existance, and a more fulfilling life. They are looking for a way of living - and a faith - that reflects and supports the interconnectedness of everyone and everything in the universe. People understand that when something happens to a poor black person in New Orleans, it has an effect on the rich white person in DC. And that when someone does a kindness for one person, it can effect someone else way on the other side of the world. People that I know of, at least, are looking for a faith that supports this ideology. This one does that.
C'mon! no! C'mon! «People understand that when something happens to a poor black person in New Orleans, it has an effect on the rich white person in DC. And that when someone does a kindness for one person, it can effect someone else way on the other side of the world. People that I know of, at least, are looking for a faith that supports this ideology. This one does that. » Take Katrina for an example, please! Take the bills that DC enforces and get a glimpse on Georgetown, All the projects, that cheap housing and slow decaying conditions, what is the effect on the Rich white men? Can't you see the sludge factory that is state power, corporate power, media power? Even when of this mongers get to jail they get a nice one, where do you see the effects of the underdog suffering on the Rich White Dogs? That just blows me into pieces, damn, damn, damn, damn!!!!!! The only way we can have equality and decency and respect is through Education, Equality of Social conditions, and Distribution of Wealth [ie. no more explotiations of resources in poor countries! Do you think your PC or Mac was made by someone that has a good living? Nope, ever heard of a sweatshop, free tax zones? Man you got a lot of sweat on your discdrive for a couple of cents.--P- 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
THat's precisely my point - the only way we are ever going to right these wrongs is when the people finally understand that they must stand up. THis practice is a practice that promotes develops and encouraes people to become active participants in society, to take stands on exactly the kinds of issues you mention - education, equality of social conditions, and distribution of wealth.
As for "where do you see the effects of the underdog suffering on the Rich White Dogs?" I'd say you see it everywhere - in the fact that these people are lving in a constant state of fear and guilt. THat tarnishes the soul. In the fact that people operating in these ways are caught up in a trap of their own making. Just because they have wealth doesn't mean they aren't effected.
And again I've never seen anyone in SGI besides middle class people, never a true underdog. Aren't they allowed in? Well I would also go against that, but I find it odd.
And there too, you are *so* wrong. If everything else I said were false, and everything else you said was true, SGI would still be the most diverse , and the most tolerant, respectful and embracing organization I've ever been a part of. You know how they say Sunday is the most segregted day in America -= because churches split down the color/race/ethnicity line? That is SO not true of SGI. Check out the 50th Issue of Tricycle Magazine, or just walk into the closest SGI Center and you'll see that for yourself. And not only is it diverse ethnically, but it is absolutely economically diverse - I personally know of doctors, lawyers, teachers, librarians, artists, dancers, construction workers, business men, welfare recipients, drug addicts, guys who sell the newspapers on the highwasy in the mornings, photographers, yoga teachers, college studnets, high school students, PHD candidates, musicsians, singers, physicists, pharmacists, biologists -- you name it. People lving in the projects practice with people who live in fine homes in the best parts of town. And no one cares! Of all the things you have said, this is the most untrue. Now, maybe where you live there isn't that kind of diversity - so SGI won't have it there either. But here on the east coast, that is a slice of the whole, without question.
Ok, you are right. Wich makes it even worst for me.--P- 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
«Its try it and see.» Indeed it is, will not argue with you on that point. But wouldn't it be the same not practicing it? wouldn't stuff be happening to you in the same way if you still upheld the values of respect for yourself and otheres, humanism, education and other common values?
Yes, of course it("stuff...happening to you") happens - that is what I tried to get at before, too. But the one thing you will hear from everyone and anyone who practices is that it, happens more routinely, more predictably, and more often when they are practicing. That even if you think you are a totally compassionate person, and you do good works every day of your life, every single person has that place or time where they aren't their best - they can not tolerate a certain politician, say. The great compassionate person who bites off his/her spouse's head for whatever intolerable thing they do still has something to learn about him/herself. Or the person who walks away everytime they meet a coworker they don't like, instead of trying to challenge themselves. Now, remember, no where in here did I say that one should accept the things they don't like -- just that there is something to learn about themselves - how they react, how they handle those situations, how they get into those situations, and how to resolve them in the most positive, self and other affirming way possible. THAT is what is meant by "value creation," and THAT is what Nichiren Buddhism, at least the kind practiced by by SGI, that is what it is all about. BTW Have you seen the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" You might find it very interesting on some of these points.
Yeah, I've witnessed a pre and post change in social and work behaviour from SGI members. It's nothing they couldn't have achieved on their own before if they weren't such egotistical mainiacs.
Your vitriol aside, the point you yourself just made is that they didn't acheive those changes on their own - they acheived them by practicing Nichiren Buddhism with SGI. I mean, really, "c'mon c'mon" yourself! The point you are trying to make is like saying that someone who has become well after taking medicine, could have become well without it. Who knows? Maybe they could have, or maybe not. But what DID happen as that when they took the medicine, they got well. What is the point of arguing what would have happened if they didn't take it?? -R--138.89.173.180 22:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Vitriol guy Listen "Buddy" or 138.89.173.180 I didn't say they became well after the medicine they took and keep swallowing. They dind't get well. They got worse. Now they a have a narrow vocabulary and they are impossible to talk with, everything ends up in that fake smile and positivism that gives me nausea. They seem... uh... brainwashed?? yeah, brainwashed. Still, you don't know what vitriol is and stop reading things that I didn't write. Hell there is a person typing those words, me! and not the web bot of slander SGI freak show geek. I will say this one last time: This is a very very very serious matter to me, web texts and emotion are not very well laid out, but I emphasize one last time: very serious. And I'm not a moron do not treat me as one.--P- 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Ruby" will do just fine. I kind of like "vitriol guy" though. It suits you, don't you think? As for your friends, that sounds really bad and I am sorry to hear it. Worse in what way? But, that aside, what you said was "It's nothing they couldn't have achieved on their own before " which suggests that there was some positive change. Regardless, it is obvious you miss your friends, and I feel for you. But honestly, that still doesn't mean they were "brainwashed" - just that you guys must have "grown apart."
I, like you have seen my fair share of religion, although I was always irreligious and/or atheist. My main concern is the that I think faith is uselless not hope, not ethics and a not a decent education. Note that I'm not sprouting this out of nowhere, I was educated into this by my own choices and experiences and through also, and very importantly through what others searched before me. I couldn't have this discussion with you if it weren't for B.Russel for example and he isn't exempt from my criticism. Or Nietzsche.
Funny, you just took me back to an old friend, a Nietzche guy - got me into him, too, for a while, back right after college. But here's the thing. The thing is, what can I or anyone say to you? That is your view of the world, and you are happy with it. And that's ok. So be happy with your self, and your view. I mean, I can't help shaking my head, though, and clucking "mm...mm..mm, now, that's a shame..." but what can I, or anyone do for you? That is who you are -- and that is who you will remain, until and unless you decide its not who you want to be. As for me, I figure what the hell? I might as well be hopeful and live with faith and joy. The alternative is really boring, depressing, and full of anger and self-pity. ANd I have lived this way, trust me. And the worst part is, that because bad times always seem infinitely longer than good times, it will make for a very long, boring, depressing and angry life, which I will want to get out of, but will be stuck having to endure! So, what the hell! I choose hope. But then, that's me.
Hope is good, as his a clear rational spirit. --P- 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
And a "clear rational spirit" cannot possibly exist in a soul fueled with anger and resentment. With hope at least there is a fighting chance. - R--138.89.173.180 22:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
We have agreed on to disagree before. First I do not have a soul as you put it. A roman Catholic may have one, I do not. I have a mind with a lot of tricky things going on it. Secondly my mind is not fueled by anger, its a mere part of it, very small indeed. Do not mistake my will for my wanting, The anger comes from my emotions, my reason controls everything including that minor flaw. I do not beat up people in the streets, nor I verbally abuse them. You are annoying me with your petty observations. Do you have emotions? Or is everything cool al the time? Nevermind that.
Your mind if not fueld by anger, it is clouded by anger. Maybe that is why you have a mind with so many "tricky things going on in it". As for me, I have tons of emotions - but rarely do I dwell in them for long, unless I chose to. Sometimes I do - you know, like when you just want to be mad at someone so you just stay mad because to give it up would be like giving in? I've been there. But these days, the ones like anger, despair, jealosuy, etc., I have kind of outgrown. Joy is nice, as is pleasant; and happy is really nice, content is good. Hope springs eternal, of course, and that's a good one. I try to stay there, because when you have hope, almost everything else becomes less powerful. Fear gets me from time to time, but not too often lately. I enjoy silliness most of all, and laughing is a blast! Sadness is bittersweet, and I'll indulge it in a good movie, but try not to spend too much of my life living it. Not that I haven't been know to throw a hissy fit or two. I can really be good at that. I am a Scorpio after all! But basically, I am pretty happy, and pretty "cool" as you put it. And guess how I do it - yoga and chanting nam myoho renge kyo. Works like a charm to quiet the mind, and bring one to a state of "clear rational spirit." Oh, and speaking of which, I kind of thought "spirit" and "soul" could be used interchangebly - poetic license...? Sorry if I am annoying you, though. Maybe you should try chanting. (JUST KIDDING!! JUST KIDDING!!! GEEEZZZ!!!) :-) - R --138.89.151.226 08:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


«As for the language, I imagine your concern with that comes from the old Catholic fear about speaking in tongues and all of that stuff» It doesn't. I think I was quite precise before. If I wished to mention glossolalia I would.
Words are very important, they are intimatly conected with reasoning and consciousness, they are all born in a very intricate way and at they grow together in tandem. Words are a fundamental tool for thought, the more and the more precise they are the better in orther to understand the world. With a reduced language we have no way to accuratly descrive any given situation, thing or action. When I mentioned the mystical value of the words of the title of the Lotus Sutra I was trying to expose the fact that it could indeed be just about anything, yes because what mattered was the value you give them. You couldn't distort Walt Whitman's poetry because you understand the english language naitively and final value of the Leaves of Grass or even Ulysses with words exchanged. You couldn't change it to swaziland do you understand? It would render a tottaly diferent outcome. The question is those words of the Sutra aren't even native to japan, they might mean different things and like all mystical architects Nichiren played with it. It escalates both vertically and horizontally and semiotically. The mantra of the Lotus Sutra is constructed with that embeded notion. How can you connect your mystical vehicle with something that you really don't understand without studying very hard all of it's particles and wishing, ok, now I'm condescending, having faith in it to be true.
You got my point - words are important -- but only because of the meaning we ascribe to them. They are the sum of their parts - America is the sum of all that is American from Apple Pie, to the KKK, to democracy to protest marches. You get my drift. But the letters A M E R I C A were not imbued with anything - we were not born into this world knowing what those symbols were or the particular combination, and what they come to mean to us is as much what we studied in high school as what we experienced in a cross country tour, or in the 2 square miles of our neighborhood. And because of that, when we here the word, our hearts are stirred - maybe anbger, fear, disappointment - or maybe pride, joy, happiness. It is not the word that makes it so - it is the meaning we ascribe to it, individually, and collectively. And so, neither is the title itself, wether it is ancient Chinese, Japanese or Sanskrit - anything more than a combination of symbols - it is the meaning that has been ascribed to it by Shakyamuni, by Nichiren, by me, by you -- and by our experiences. Nichiren tried to show us that by using these symbols, and steadfastly assigning to them all that is most powerful within ourselves, then in fact when we chant that word, we are able to conjure up that power within ourselves just by saying the words. Just like when I say America, it conjures up pride. (Even during times like these ;-) )

And still this true buddhism is a play out in the garden and it turns people afraid of the woods, because it's dark and they wish it wasn't.[lyrically]

Please, this isn't helping out the article in anyway, I think I've already left my eMail address in the other page, assuming I'm replying to the same person. This is pure flame baiting from either one of us, I'm a detractor of faith and you are a supporter of a religion, we will never have a platform for understanding you have faith and I have no faith in faith to be arbinger of good to mankind.

and it would be civil to continue this duel at dawn. my email address: breakheretic@yahoo.com im also a member of anti-sokagakkai in yahoo groups and I forgot my handel in the alt.nichiren one because I don't go there for some years now. --P- 23:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should really move this discussion elsewhere - but I do think it has some value. ANyone who comes to this page or to this discussion, must be in some way, interested in learning more about the subject. I think this discourse might be interesting and helpful to some. Nonetheles, we can leave it. I am glad you left your email, but you are braver than I. Perhaps I will get in touch, though. -- KPMP 151.198.99.71 22:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What bravery? What are you afraid of? It's just an email account, you can make one just for this discussion. Are you afraid someone or me have malicious intent? Because if you do, remember that your IP is in plain sight and nothing of arm happened to you. On a finishing note. I want to state that I do not believe that I'm 100% right that is sick, and I don't want to enforce my view on others, I just want to share my view. --P- 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You take me so literally. I only meant that I didn't want my email address published to the world - I've alredy got over 5000 emails, and over 4000 I haven't read yet - and these are from people I actually know, and who I actually want to have my address. Why in the world would anyone want to publish their email address to a host of unknown people?
My email has been public for ages and there isn't anyone writing to me. Must be my bad karma. I felt in the recent past discussion that it would be best for this discussion to be private, Ido not think it would be interesting to continue this further and specially not by email.--P- 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Guess that tells you something....?
And by the way, you also really give a lot of importance to this whole IP address thing - who cares about that? Its a given that as soon as one enters the internet, and hits the enter key, that ones privacy and security are compromised. But its kind of like the difference between standing outside in a thunderstorm vs. standing outside in a thunderstorm under a tree with a metal rod in your hand.
You would be amazed at what someone could do with just your IP. Actually you are not standing in either cases. but maybe you are blinfolded. --P- 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Ummm....don't get it...? Doubt I'd be as amazed as you think I would be, though. I just figure if someone wants to, they will...whether I'm on the net or not. Nowhere is truly safe. Safety is an illusion. That is why so many Americans are so frigging freaked out. They really believed they were safe! Or that they really CAN be safe. Its a stupid illusion, and the fear factor is used way to much to manipulate people. I say no to fear, and choose hope instead. And I doubt I am any more vulnerable one way than the other...
But you do have a point - I could make one just for this discussion. But, then again, why would I, when I already have 4000 unopened emails from people I actually know!?!
Please don't. And stop waving numbers that doesn't make politicians look well.

On a final note, I no longer have the desire to discuss this with you. If you persist in this without humility and keep acting moraly superior with your paternalism I will no longer be pleasent. --P- 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. Its kind of cool that someone thinks I am "acting morally superioer" and "paternalistic" though. But, it's been real, and I still wish you well. Ciao!
As for sharing your view, that is very cool. I am enjoying the discussion, and I think it is probably useful for a lot of other people as well. Having my email address, however, may be useful for others - but not necessarily for me. :-)

Also the definition of Shakubuku wasn't very far from what I felt with the people of SGI I met. But I won't touch that.

quote: «..rather by being a friend and explaining it..» hummm yes...thank you very much... after the 14th time it get's close to torture.

I just feel there should be a greater quality in this article, from people that aren't biased SGI followers or detractors like myself.

That would be nice...


also... there are to many links in the SGI page... it gives a very disruptive image when compared with other pages. Thsi is the SGI page so there is no real need for a link like the one that get you to some activity that is sponsered by SGI is there?

--Primeirocrime 09:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming the links. There were far too many. -Willmcw 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. In fact, if we use the article on the Church of Scientology, it would be appropriate to include small sections of the article to describing at least some of the major organizations that have been founded by SGI and/or Dr. Ikeda. There is an inconsistancy in your rational here that I don't understand. -R

I also notice that there is no consistancy in the decision to include links to sites critical of a given religion or religious institution. THere are no such links on the Catholic CHurch and the Dalai Lama sites, for instance, but there are on this one and on Scientology. There are definately many such sites out there. How, why, who decides these things? It seems to reflect the bias of the individuals writing the article, not any attempt to be truly neutral. THere should at least be consistancy across the board...Either include critical links everywhere, or don't include them. =R--68.45.57.193 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall having given a rationale at Church of Scientology. Certainly it is worthwhile to have a representative sampling of websites which add information. But Wikipedia is not a web directory. There's no need for along list of websites, particularly if one of the links goes to a portal which has those others links. If we are going to list organizations then we should do it in the body of the article, rather than in the "external links" section. Also, Wikipedia is not consistent. -Willmcw 01:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
R--[[User:68.45.57.193 mentions «There are no such links on the Catholic Church and the Dalai Lama sites» Did you check the history on those pages? When I first came here there where no links either.

Wikipedia isn't perfect but hey, did you check Madre Teresa of Calcuta? [1] - some people also think she is saint.

They point to a quote that "SGI is not a Buddhist organization" as proof of this, noting a passage that says that "of all Buddhist organizations, only Soka Gakkai can be considered fully correct in its doctrines." Is this a valid cristism? I have no idea where in hell did quote come from? Am I correct to say it's SGI own?Gammadion 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(Section on excommunication moved from here to <here: will insert link later> because it was out of sequence)


Question

What is this statement about? "However, certain elements of the public charge that the Nichiren Buddhism actually prescribes the opposite behavior about religious freedom and that Soka Gakkai is totally ignorant about the conflict of its Charter and its religious doctrine, though followers deny the charge and have a different interpretation of the documents. In some cases, Soka Gakkai has emphasized that it is "not a Buddhist organization" in the sense that, of all Buddhist organizations, only Soka Gakkai can be considered full correct in its doctrines. (See the Rissho Ankoku Ron.)" Since when has a belief in the veracity of one's religion meant that one was against religious freedom? If that is so, then you need to make the same comment about Islam, Cathoiocism (and every other form of Christianity), Judaism, and every other religious -ism. This commentary is biassed, to say the least, verging on hostile.

What is with the use of phrases like "totally ignorant?" as if the view that there is a "conflict" is the only correct perception? And where did you get a comment like SG is "not a Buddhist organization?" who said it, in what context, when, where and why? And how does the "in the sense that..." comment explain anything? That sentence doesn't even make sense...Once again, not appropriate for a "so called" encyclopedia, and, if you are going to make claims, please cite and source them properly, and be objective in your use of tha language, Please change this before I do... Fast losing respect for this experiment...Too bad... - R --141.150.143.210 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

R: Fwiw, I agree with your objections to Gammadion's rather imprecise use of the language (it would be nice if this person could learn to use the space bar after periods and commas, too); but instead of "losing respect for [the] experiment" (I assume you mean Wikipedia), why not just edit the text? I'm not saying you should just remove content that irks you; I'm saying you ought to edit it so it still conveys the message, but in a less offensive manner. That said, Gammadion seems to have a chip on her/his shoulder about religion in general, and an axe to grind about SGI and other Nichiren schools in particular. The strong bias of such axe grinding, as you have written, does not belong here, but neither do attempts at proselytizing. Jim_Lockhart 15:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I hesitate to make any changes, for fear of the accusations. I don't want to add fuel to the flame. But I certainly understand and agree with your approach, and appreciate the invitation - it is exactly how I would hope to accomplish, if I were to edit. I think it is a shame, though, that I feel this way. I think it is unacceptable that people are allowed to verbally bash each other into this kind of silence. This should be an open forum. I'll speak up, I don't care. But a lot of other people are just turned off, hurt, or just ignore it and dismiss Wiki altogether. That really doesn't serve Wiki or anyone else, does it.
For now, I think it is best that I stay on the outside, asking questions and letting those who seek control, answer them. In this way, perhaps the deed will be done.
Forgive me, though, if you think I proselytize. It is more my interest to present something more or less substantial in the face of something more or less not so. It wouldn't help if I just said "I don't agree with you, I think you're stupid, mean, and unfair" I hope to present something to bite into and chew on, with the hope that I will get the same in return. If that were to happen, it wouldn't be possible to call it proselytizing -- it would be a good debate.
I do fear for Wikipedia, though, or for the people, I guess I should say. Seriously, as a librarian whose main focus is really online research, I was completely razzed about Wiki when I first discovered it. But, I soon became concerned when I realized that it could also pose problems for the regular everday Joanne searcher. One day I did a search on something in Google - it pulled up a Wikipedia site, and another site. Wikipedia's site had reproduced almost word for word, the stuff from the other site -- and THAT site was no authority! It scares me to think of my students doing research projects, pulling up stuff from Wikipedia, and believing it on face value, and that is a sad thing for Wiki. I am teaching my kids to be critical - but many many many other people are not, or don't even care, much less think about it. My question is, does Wiki care? And what are they doing, or are they willing to do about it?
The WIki site has an aura of authority. If it is to be so, it musr protect its reputation at all costs, and on all subject matter, including "controversial" or "unpopular" topics. That's really all there is to it. - R--68.45.57.193 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Will you please relax,R? I am no major linguist and I don't mince my words at times. If you do want to help me edit my postings, please do not hesitate. If I am not bold, I may not be able to bring conflicting points of view to the subject. I may have an axe to grind with the whole regional SGI organisation or even global organisation due to my percieved view that SGI is hoodwinking the public with its policies and doctrines, but I hope that I could be of some aid in letting the public understand the organisation better. R, just to emphasize a fact, the rest of the religious organisations you mentioned do not hide behind a facade of religious tolerance, they are in every way religious-intolerant, however, they do proslytise in a peaceful way. By the way, I do question the smart-alec comment that SGI is not a buddhist organisation in the sense it is the only one correct in its practices. It certainly wasn't typed by me.Gammadion 03:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
How can I relax? Did you read what you just wrote?? You make my argument for me, right there - if you don't care enough to be precise in your use of language, then what do you end up with? In a pure blog - even in these discussions - go ahead be "bold" "don't mince your words" don't be a "linguist!" even - that's cool. I certainly appreciate it! It makes for entertaining reading. But in something that could be, is, and will be taken as a real "reference source" by my students (for example) teachers, people in general, that is not cool. You - we - wiki editors - powers that be in wiki-land -- owe the public better.
Besides, talk about "hoodwinking" What exactly do you think you are doing if you use what could be and should be a useful, real, fairly reliable "reference tool" as your personal foray into "the World According to Gammadion?" ( American Heritage: Foray: NOUN: 1. A sudden raid or military advance. 2. A venture or an initial attempt, especially outside one's usual area: an actor's foray into politics. VERB: Inflected forms: for·ayed, for·ay·ing, for·ays INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To make a raid. 2. To make inroads, as for profit or adventure. TRANSITIVE VERB: Archaic To pillage in search of spoils")
And ok, so now I know you won't call me names, I edited the article. :-) Good night! - Ruby--70.21.220.149 08:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
And once again, Rudy tries to pull a fast one over the readers' eyes. What in hell is reliable in terms of references? Official facts from SGI published books? Sending in private investigators to find out who said what in a public discussion meeting? Don't complain about the blog way of phrasing of things but then again I left my ideas mainly in the discussion area, I just try and report what I have seen and heard in discussion meetings and reading materials. Gammadion 03:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yo G, I don't care for the accusations, ok? Stop projecting. That aside, what do you even mean by this? Of course using materials from the orginal source is acceptabe! In fact, you are supposed to use both the organizations information AND those of others - which is what I have been saying ad infinitum a'ready. My criticism has been, is, and will forever be (it looks like), that to acheive a balance, one must use and cite a variety of sources representing a variety of points of view on the same subject-- *including* the organizations' own words. If the original source from the organization or person is reliable, then so is its information. If its not, it is up to you (or me, or whomever,) to go about proving it using and citing other reliable sources. If you don't then, what are you suggesting? That in an encycopedia or forum discussing whomever or whatever, that the actual person or organization's views about themselves are irrelevant?!? That's ridiculous. Its also probably censorship.
Secondly, I am saying, have been, and apparently will be forever and ever, that the other sources that you use to provide the balance MUST also meet standards of reliability, authority, currency, etc. -- ie, not some JoeSchmoe.com site last updated in 1994 by Mr. Some Guy who has a grudge and figures he can make money on it by selling his grudge info to other people.
Third, if you ever actually took the time to look at some of my suggested readings, you'd know that they are not all raving supporters, nor are they all detractors. HOWEVER they ARE all published by reputable publishers, meaning they have gone through regular editorial reveiws, and/or are peer reviewed, and which means they have some responsibility to be based in fact, and or at least well written and well argued, and they are all relatively current - say in the last 3 to 5 years.
Fourth, if I use a website, I just about always seek out .org, or .edu sites over .coms because in order to qualify for their domain they can not have profit as their motivating raison d'etre -- which means while they may have a particular point of view (as in a .org), they must also have met some standard as authorities in their area in order to qualify for the domain. So please. G. If your "reader's eyes" cant keep up with the speed of my argument, then they must be out of shape. Don't blame me for that. - R


Discontinues at Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive05