| Revision as of 19:24, 20 November 2014 editBrandenburgG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,387 edits →Order of subsections: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 20 November 2014 edit undoJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Order of subsections: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| That's my two cents. | That's my two cents. | ||
| ] (]) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | ] (]) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Catholicism and Judaism both see themselves as being the "original" form of their belief system, and their beliefs are in lots of ways not so clearly based on previous similar beliefs, like is the case with ]. It would make sense for Calvinism to discuss the history, and the inherited ideas and points of differentiation, first in a history section which details why they broke away from the earlier group. I guess the decision for this article would be based on to what extent the beliefs of SGI are more or less inherited from a previous group and to what extent they are original. If most of their belief system is "inherited," then I myself would start with a "History" section indicating the reasons and time of the breakaway from the earlier group. If most of it is in some way "original," then starting with beliefs might make more sense. ] (]) 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 20 November 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Beliefs and practices again
I added a sentence to the first paragraph to clarify the phrase "personal gain". --Daveler16 (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Added a sub-section on "Faith Practice and Study", I think incorporating stuff from other sections. Also amended the sections on "Life Force" and "Gohonzon". I think a few of the othewr subsections of "Beliefs and Practices" are not necessary, or perhaps belong in other parts of the entry. I think a few of the other subsections can also be improved, but it may be a while before I have the time. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Daveler. Very too bad that primary sources, such as the writings of Daisaku Ikeda, can not be used to document "variable beliefs": Religion? Philosophy? Attachment? Non-Attachment? Shakyamuni is the Original Eternal Buddha? Nichiren is the Original Eternal Buddha? Namu Myoho renge kyo is the Original Eternal Buddha? DaiGohonzon central? Gohonzon within central? The Lotus Sutra has lost its power in Mappo? The wisdom of the Lotus Sutra? Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism? Soka Gakkai Buddhism? Faith is first and foremost? Just chant and you can believe in anything? Five recitations of the Sutra in the morning and three at night? Two recitations of the Sutra morning and night? Hiki ? Only Nam Daimoku? Nikken Gohonzon good? Nikken Gohonzon bad? Need I go on? 2602:306:CC5C:D7C9:B53D:426F:2A9:B6BF (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 10/27/14
Actually, according to Shi, and to every other religious WP entry I've looked at - yes, you can use primary sources in the matter of what the religion believes. And I believe our concern here is what SG believes; there are (I think)other forums for arguing about the validity of those beliefs, but that's not what we're doing here. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- What Mr. Rogow is suggesting is actually WP:SYNTH though. I think it would indeed be funny to compare passages like "Nichiren is the Original Eternal Buddha? Namu My the late 90s and can't oho renge kyo is the Original Eternal Buddha?", but that belongs on something like RationalWiki, and it's not what Misplaced Pages is for. SG is a large, international organization, and we need to summarize their teachings neutrally. Shii (tock) 02:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added to the Lotus Sutra section, and changed the "Chanting Daimoku" section - added a lot, and got rid of reference to "namu" as no one in SG pronounces it that way. Also, the "chanting for destruction" reference is covered in the Separation from Priesthood section; since SG doesn't actually teach such a thing, it shouldn't be in "Beliefs and Practices". While I understand that at one time an independent author said this, and there are no academic studies that list all the things SG does not believe, I've searched a lot of SG books and periodicals published since the late 90s and can't find an injunction to "chant in groups for the destruction of enemies".
Two more things: I don't think the "Views on Priesthood" subsection is necessary, since there are 11 paragraphs on this subject earleier in the entry. And, I wish to move the "Beluefs and Practices" section to the top of the entry, as we discussed earlier.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Re-arranged "Mentor Disciple". Didn't delete or cha ge any wording. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved B&P up. I think it improves the article from the POV of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Removal of photo of Gohonzon. This image is an object of respect and devotion and should not be posted casually as a reference. I understand that the idea is to be npov so to go beyond whether the image is objectionable to SGI members having it posted symbolicly lacks foundation as posting the image does not represent what the Soka Gakkai is as an organization. That is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. It does not add any value to the discussion of SG and its removal would relieve continuous contentions so that further editing can focus on more valuable additions. Another suggestion would be to replace the image with a diagram if the Gohonzon which is more infirmative, factual and npov j Trobinson708 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- See above section. Stickee (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: User updated their post after my 05:42 comment. Stickee (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There are pictures of Gohonzon on the Shoshu and Shu WP entries, too. It is disrespectful - and, I think, unnecessary -- but I don't think it's going to change.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The picture is in accordance with English Misplaced Pages's queer philosophy that important images relevant to the subject must be displayed, even if those whose hearts are close to the subject would rather choose different images. If you look at, e.g. the Arabic Misplaced Pages article on Muhammad, they have a slightly different philosophy. But this being English WP we must abide by their philosophy. Shii (tock) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Josei Toda Section
I am hoping we can take a fresh look at the Josei Toda subsection of the article. The subsection purports to describe the SG's development under Toda's leadership. I think the subsection understates his influence and doesn't provide insights into why and how he was able to transform a small and broken organization into a major phenomenon that has withstood the test of time. The only explanation it gives for the movement's growth is aggressive "forced conversion." I think there are multiple alternative explanations that should be offered to readers.
The SG article is already quite long and I hesitate to add more material especially when there is already a lengthy article (Josei Toda on him. But as it stands now, it just doesn't convey a balanced and insightful picture to readers. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
More Questionable References
In the Mentor and Disciple section, there is no page number for footnote (currently) 80: Yano, Jun'ya (2009). Kuroi techō: Sōka Gakkai "Nihon senryō keikaku" no zenkiroku. Tōkyō: Kōdansha. ISBN 978-4-06-215272-3. Can we get the page number? If not, the reference will be deleted. Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a neutral source for the statement being made anyway. Shii (tock) 20:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok - done.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Beliefs and practices first
In principle I'm not opposed to having this section first. But the way it is written now presumes that a lot of information has already been introduced. The first sentence is "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework as a hokkeko, a form of lay organization." None of that has been introduced yet. If we are going to go this way, I think we had better start with a summary of the basic tenets of Nichiren Buddhism and only then introduce what is specific to SG.
In fact, what I would like to suggest is factoring out both the history and B&P sections into separate articles. They both have more than enough material. They are also the sections that contain most of the contentious material. Having them in separate articles would make it easier to get this article into a more or less stable version. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right, Margin1522. I had re-written that paragraph once, but someone changed it back. I'll look at it again, unless you want to make the changes? I just moved the section as it was (after a few re-writes of sub sections).--Daveler16 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. As of now the intro doesn't follow at all. If it doesn't work out we can always rewind. In the meantime I think I'm going to try working on the main article on Nichiren Buddhism. It's got misspellings and grammar issues, and really gets into the sectarian weeds. As it stands it's pretty hard to summarize. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well. You didn't get a chance to rewrite that paragraph, did you? I must say, you've displayed admirable patience through all this. As for me I'll leave it for another day. Better not to write in anger. – Margin1522 (talk)
Easily fixed. I see that, once again, for the umpteenth time, a major change is made without discussing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I should mention again why B&P should lead off the article. As is known (maybe it's a sensitive subject on WP talk pages?) most professors and teachers do not allow their students to cite Misplaced Pages in research. And I can't imagine anyone but an academic being interested, first and foremost, in the SG history, ancient criticisms and esoteric disputes, anecdotes from 1951, etc. Yes, eventually, perhaps, a reader would want to know all this and that's why they have to be included; but it makes sense that the vast majority of people to use Misplaced Pages to learn about the SG are doing so because they are interested in its beliefs, or a child or spouse has started practicing (I believe there's an editor who came here precisely because of that?)and they want to know what it is they're practicing. Why not make it easier for most of the people who are reading? If there has been research into readership, and I'm wring, then I apologize, and okay, bury B&P. But please, let's discuss it first.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- We already had a discussion about this and I believe Ubikwit is in the minority. There is no clear format among religion articles, for example, Bahá'í Faith and Christian Science have beliefs sections first, while Scientology has it otherwise. In the SG article there is a good argument that SG beliefs are unfamiliar enough that they can be explained first and may help provide context for the History section. Shii (tock) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a certain way to proceed with those issues. Less is more, but at this point the article is pathetic amongst Nichiren Buddhist related issues.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Shii I think you have it backwards. The history of the organization informs its beliefs and practices.
- More than 90% of its B&P are derivative on another religious group, one to with which it was originally associated. It was not founded as a unique NRM based on a newly defined doctrine, like Tenrikyo, for example, or the NRMs you mention.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 02:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- First, NS is by no means a familiar group for English speakers. Second, having read bits and pieces of Human Revolution, I am of the opinion that SG has a lot of social practices -- notably its conception of the master-disciple relationship, and its idealized image of society -- that have no relationship with NS. It asks members to do many things that NS hokkeko do not do. I have no idea what to make of its so-called "peace activism" that seems more like performance art, and I am glad that section is now separate from B&P. Shii (tock) 02:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I would maintain that the SG social practices to which you refer grew out of the historical relationship to NS, or more specifically NSS, which was somewhat on the fringe of NS. The disciple-master relationship itself is pretty much a Buddhism-wide phenomenon, though, as far as I know. --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but in other sects it is only between abbots and monks. SG believes this can apply even between lay members and their... honorary president for life. Shii (tock) 16:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I would maintain that the SG social practices to which you refer grew out of the historical relationship to NS, or more specifically NSS, which was somewhat on the fringe of NS. The disciple-master relationship itself is pretty much a Buddhism-wide phenomenon, though, as far as I know. --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- First, NS is by no means a familiar group for English speakers. Second, having read bits and pieces of Human Revolution, I am of the opinion that SG has a lot of social practices -- notably its conception of the master-disciple relationship, and its idealized image of society -- that have no relationship with NS. It asks members to do many things that NS hokkeko do not do. I have no idea what to make of its so-called "peace activism" that seems more like performance art, and I am glad that section is now separate from B&P. Shii (tock) 02:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
As Margin1522 pointed out, the first paragraph of the section needs to be re-written so that it makes more sense at the top. I hope to have something to submit on that in a day or two.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Shii: This is utter misinformation. The relationship between master and disciple is in all Buddhist traditions foremost a personal relationship between two individuals. Teacher and student. Just like in academia the teacher has gained certain credentials – if the student decides that the credentials does not match his/her curriculum the student leaves – if the teacher decides the student is not worth teaching he/she will not waste each others time. The same goes for Buddhism (except SGI), teacher(master) and student(disciple) have to accept each other. It’s a personal relationship. Not limited to monks. Same goes for the concept of a “guru”. It’s only been due to cult movements that this concept has been misused. In this context, as a cult, SGI follows cult traditions. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Butting in here, but as someone who doesn't know the topic of SG and related that well, I can see a somewhat reasonable question about whether there really can be a "personal relationship" between and teacher and student who may never have met personally and may perhaps reasonably never be expected to have any significant person-to-person interaction. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- John: Well just as I said, and thanks for butting in, the way the concept is interpreted in SGI is unique to SGI. I see no harms in pointing that out, but labelling it Buddhist (or whatever) is farfetched. Even the writings by Nichiren are most of all a correspondence between individuals – and if some do not like the fact – Nichiren was an ordained Tendai priest. There is nothing wrong that SGI defines this concept differently. Not even a need to mention that there is no need for monks, priests, ordained or inidividulas versed in Buddhist Studies in SGI – but it’s surely not a traditional teacher (mentor, master) student (disciple) relationship as has been practiced in Buddhism or whatever is on the market on traditional Asian philosophies. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The idea that people cannot be disciples of someone they never met is not proven by history. That people come to know their mentor through writings and teachings is hardly new. Shakyamuni, Nichiren, Jesus and others are have been mentors to millions. The concept is not like the guilds of ancient Europe where apprentices worked side by side with masters. Nichiren wrote: "The Lotus Sutra is a manifestation in writing of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni's intent. Shakyamuni Buddha and the written words of the Lotus Sutra are two different things, but their heart is one. Therefore, when you cast your eyes upon the words of the Lotus Sutra, you should consider that you are beholding the living body of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni." (WND-1, 333)Ltdan43 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think most Christians describe Jesus as a "mentor". Anyway I was trying to point out that SGI's idea of "mentor" is unique and unrelated to other Buddhist sects. Shii (tock) 22:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bloody few Christians would describe Jesus as a mentor. Most would call him God, a god, or some sort of maybe semi-divine first creation. However, there are a number of syncretistic NRMs which include Jesus as some sort of mentor or source of advice.
- Getting back to the original post, about maybe spinout articles on the History and Beliefs and Practices (or maybe Theology) of SG, or perhaps spinout article(s) on SG in various individual countries or continents, when there are sufficient sources to establish both notability and enough content to merit a separate article, those can always be good ideas. Has anyone checked to see if there are sufficient independent sources to establish notability of such spinout articles? John Carter (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a matter of semantics. Whether Jesus is considered the son of God, a prophet or teacher, people follow his teachings as a guide on how to live. But forget Jesus. For centuries, people read Shakyamuni's writings and adopted him as their teacher—mentor.Ltdan43 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross interpretation of Buddhist hermeneutics. Have you ever talked to a Theravada monk? Especially in Southeast Asia, I think it would be very difficult to find someone who thinks of Buddha as his "mentor". SG's teaching here is unique even among Buddhist groups. Shii (tock) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to interpret other schools, just in my opinion, if you call someone your teacher and use their teachings to guide you through life, it seems to me that is the same as having a mentor. Like I said, it could just be a matter of semantics. I think this quote describes the SGI concept well: “The oneness of the mentor-disciple relationship is described not in terms of demands and duties as many critics imagine it to be, but in terms of choice, freedom and responsibility. It is the disciple’s choice and decision to follow the mentor’s vision for their common goal. In response, it is the mentor’s wish to raise and foster the disciple to become greater than the mentor.” (Richard Seager, Encountering the Dharma, p. 63)Ltdan43 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the SG believes what it believes. As stated earlier, there are forums for debate about whether what the SG believes is or is not orthodox, but I don't think an encyclopedia is one of those forums. I think the sub-section does a pretty good job of explaining the SG's vision of the concept. Perhaps there should be an entire separate entry about "mentor and disciples in traditional Buddhism"? Meanwhile: I had previously asked, here, for a page number to be provided for the Yano reference. None was provided,and the only comment was from Shi stating that the source is not a neutral one anyway. So I removed it. It was returned, nut still with no page number and, presumably, with no revisions to enhance it's neutrality (trusting Shi's characterization - I don't read Japanese, and no translation was provided either). So I removed it again, and replaced it with another source that is arguably more reliable (Jane Hurst).--Daveler16 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have rewritten this to include both sides and provide some context. On the one hand, Yano was secretary-general of the Komeito for over a decade, so if anyone should know about the inner workings of the SG and the Komeito, it's him. On the other hand, he's a politician, not a student of Buddhism. I added some more context to the McLaughlin quote to clarify what it means. And restored Daveler16's reference, which seems perfectly fine. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Margin1522: The way it is now written seems perfectly fine and fair to me - with a qualification: I was unaware of Yaino's history, and now that you've explained it, it seems to me that using him as a reference would be roughly equivalent to using Ikeda as a reference to explain something in the Nichiren Shoshu entry. Should disgruntled former members (and officers!) be used in a section on the sect's doctrine? Or might he be more appropriately used in a section on history, or political activities? Anyway,, until there is some consensus that this section is about what SG believes and practices, and not what others think it should believe and practice, I appreciate that your re-write is probably as fair as we can get. I do see that my change - which I discussed here - was once again reverted with no discussion whatsoever, which is too bad. Thank you for your efforts (and intercession). --Daveler16 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that the misquoted reference from Prebish and Tanaka had been restored to the first paragraph. I have fixed it again. Frst, the book it cites is a compilation of various authors, and the chapter on the SG was written by Jane Hurst - not by Prebish and Tanaka, as the footnote had stated (they are the editors). Second, the footnote cited a page that has nothing to do with the SG/NS split. Finally, it does not say, or imply, that doctrinal differences were not the main issue - it just lists issues, without assigning levels of importance to them. I have changed the FN to reflect Hurst's authorship, corrected the page number, and included the actual quote referred to. I don't think this is a particularly big deal (though somebody does if they went to the trouble of reverting from accuracy), but I removed the qualifying phrase that Hurst never included.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Returning to the first topic in this Talk sub section: I have inserted a paragraph that does not assume prior knowledge, or familiarity with the rest of the SG entry. I notice that it does make some sentences of the subsequent op-ening paragraphs redundant, s so I'll fix those.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
...And I did: I removed most of the SG changes to NS, so it doesn't seem so self-serving. That makes it much shorter and more readable too, I think.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"In fact"
I removed the wirds "in fact" from the assertion "In fact, his main motivation was religious, not political" in the Makiguchi sub section on Repression During the War. It's really too complicated an issue to say "in fact" about someone's motivation. True, M. objected to religious consolidation; but, as a number of sources indicate, the reason for the religious consolidation was to support the wat effort (I added one reference about that) (BTW, I had to edit it twice because of an date error in a footnote)
Order of subsections
At one point I remember a discussion about the order of the subsections. It was centered on whether "History" or "Beliefs & Practices." If I recall properly it was started by Margin1522 under the title "Belief and Practices First." I don't think the issue was ever settled besides some attempted edits and reverts.
Can we all ring in with opinions? Looking at the articles about other religions, there does not seem to be a clear consensus. Catholicism and Judaism hold off on history until later in their respective articles. Calvinism, on the other hand, starts with history.
IMHO, I think B&P at the top will suit our readers the most. I believe they want to know what this organization stands for, what makes it similar/unique, what its members actually "do." History is certainly important but to most readers what occurred in the 30's, 40's, 50's and even 60's and 70's was before their birth.
That's my two cents. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Catholicism and Judaism both see themselves as being the "original" form of their belief system, and their beliefs are in lots of ways not so clearly based on previous similar beliefs, like is the case with Calvinism. It would make sense for Calvinism to discuss the history, and the inherited ideas and points of differentiation, first in a history section which details why they broke away from the earlier group. I guess the decision for this article would be based on to what extent the beliefs of SGI are more or less inherited from a previous group and to what extent they are original. If most of their belief system is "inherited," then I myself would start with a "History" section indicating the reasons and time of the breakaway from the earlier group. If most of it is in some way "original," then starting with beliefs might make more sense. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Buddhism articles
- Top-importance Buddhism articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- Top-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics