Religious Pluralism and a Study on Daisaku Ikeda’s Thoughts on Interreligious Dialogue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is possibly interesting and surely well-written, but it lacks critical assessments, except p. 4, with the evocation of the "two caveats".

For exemple, p. 2, I read "Religious pluralism is thus an attitude that excludes claims that all human achievements are absolute", but is not religious pluralism a new form of absolute claim? Also the reference to a "phenomenological method" must be defined.

I find no critical reference to the Japanese Komeito, the active and influent political branch of Soka Gakkai. Overall, the paper seems too much positive regarding Ikeda's and SG's cases.  For exemple, p. 14, I simply read "Ikeda consistently worked for the reconciliation between China and Japan, culminating in the “Proposal for the Normalization of Sino-Japanese Relations” in 1968." The A. emphasizes the contributions of SG, such as "resistance to Japanese militarism during World War II" (note 13), but makes silence on SG's typical proselytism, political connections, etc. 

In addition, the paper focuses on inter-religious dialogue (p. 2), but hardly demonstrates that this dialogue is required and that SG is especially valuable in that regards. Dialogue can also be empty and vain.

Geographically and historically speaking, a comparison with the development of SG in other countries than Japan and Korea, would be welcome. 

Also, the paper takes for granted that SG is a "religion", but it is generally considered as a religious "sect". Idem p. 4: is "confucianism" a "religion"? What is the religious difference between SG and Ninchiren shu? 

Theoretically speaking, the tone is descriptive, and not demonstrative enough, and I find the arguments not sufficiently sustained, for exemple p. 12: "Ikeda opens up the possibility of multidimensional interpretations of ultimate reality, saying, ...“

Especially the discussion of "essentialism" in note 10 is unconvincing, with the resort to the argument of scientific authority: "In other words, the weakness of common essence is that it is considered an outdated theory by modern new sciences such as process thought, quantum mechanics, and particle physics, which deny the substance or essence of all things and emphasize change and creation."

The conclusion begins with the vague statement: "Ikeda recognizes “dialogue” as the most important point in inter-religious attitudes", but as such this is not original at all. It relies on evidences such as "By listening to the opinions of others, we can discover others more deeply". Lastly, I find the following passage thoroughly uncritical: "When we consider that liberation in religion is a transition from the impure  land where inequality, injustice, discrimination, and violation of human rights occur to the pure land where nonviolence, peace, justice, and equality are realized, Ikeda’s religious pluralistic attitude can be said to have a very strong religious liberationist character. Moreover, he can be presumed to be a religious person with an open-minded and pluralistic stance, in that he pays attention to differences as well as similarities between religions." 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the religious dialogue model proposed by Daisaku Ikeda. The arguments presented are coherent. However, the author should consider implementing some straightforward revisions.

1.     In the introductory section, the author is expected to conduct a comprehensive review of pertinent prior research, which may include studies related to Daisaku Ikeda or the field of religious dialogue, contingent upon the significance of the research presented in this article. Furthermore, the author should delineate the novel contributions of this study to the relevant academic discourse.

2.     The focus of this article is on Daisaku Ikeda's religious dialogue model. However, it is unclear why the second section necessitates an introduction to the historical development of Soka Gakkai in South Korea.

3.     The fourth section may benefit from incorporating comparisons between Daisaku Ikeda's approach to religious pluralism and the theories proposed by other proponents of religious pluralism. This would serve to elucidate the unique characteristics of Ikeda's philosophical framework.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf