Daisaku Ikeda’s Philosophy and Practice of Interfaith Dialogue and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Human Revolution and Pathways to Global Peace

Abstract

This paper examines the philosophy and practice of interfaith dialogue (IFD) developed by Daisaku Ikeda (1928–2023), a prominent religious leader and peace philosopher. It explores how his dialogical approach can contribute to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and pathways to global peace. Ikeda’s dialogue is not confined to doctrinal debate or temporary reconciliation among faith communities. Rather, it is framed as a transformative process in which participants from diverse religious and civilizational traditions rebuild relationships through mutual respect and understanding, thereby contributing to personal transformation and broader societal change. Focusing on Ikeda’s core concepts—humanism, the dignity of life, and human revolution—this study first clarifies the philosophical foundations of his interfaith dialogue rooted in Nichiren Buddhism and a life-affirming worldview. It then examines major dialogues with global thinkers and leaders (e.g., Arnold J. Toynbee, Linus Pauling, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Johan Galtung) and selected institutional practices associated with Soka Gakkai International (SGI), the Institute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP), and the Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue. These cases illustrate how Ikeda’s IFD functions as praxis for civilizational understanding, social cohesion, conflict transformation, and solidarity for the public good. The paper further analyzes the linkages between Ikeda’s IFD and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), SDG 4 (Quality Education—especially Target 4.7 on Global Citizenship Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). It argues that IFD can operate as both a normative and practical resource for mitigating religious conflict, strengthening inclusion, enhancing global citizenship education and education for sustainable development (ESD), and fostering multistakeholder partnerships. The paper also reflects on the challenges of translating an approach grounded in a particular religious tradition into broader SDG governance contexts.

1. Introduction

In the early decades of the twenty-first century, humanity has confronted an unprecedented polycrisis encompassing climate emergency and ecological destruction, pandemics and public health threats, widening inequality, rising hatred, renewed wars, and refugee crises. These interrelated challenges have reinforced one another, causing risks across regions and sectors. They cannot be addressed by the efforts of any single nation or sector alone; rather, they require multilayered and multilateral responses that integrate political, economic, cultural, and religious dimensions.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations in 2015, represent the collective response of the international community to these crises. The SDGs foreground poverty eradication, inequality reduction, climate action, peace and justice, and global partnerships as core priorities.

Religion has historically played a dual role in this context. On the other hand, it has been mobilized to justify identity conflicts, exclusivism, and violence, thereby becoming a source of division. On the other hand, religious traditions also sustain values such as human dignity, compassion, solidarity, and nonviolence, functioning as resources for peacebuilding and reconciliation. In the SDG era, the direction in which religion exerts its influence can significantly shape prospects for sustainable peace and inclusive communities. This helps explain the growing scholarly and policy interest in interfaith dialogue—not merely as a gesture of courtesy among religions, but as an emerging component of global governance and sustainable development discourse.

Among contemporary thinkers, Daisaku Ikeda—a Buddhist philosopher and president of Soka Gakkai International (SGI)—has, for more than half a century, advanced a praxis centered on peace, culture, and education. Through sustained dialogues with intellectuals and global leaders across religious and civilizational traditions, he has developed a distinctive model of interfaith dialogue. His dialogical practice extends beyond interreligious cooperation in a narrow sense. It encompasses dialogue among civilizations, between science and religion, between politics and civil society, and between intellectuals and ordinary citizens. At the same time, Ikeda consistently emphasizes that dialogue should catalyze inner transformation in individuals while linking such transformation to broader social and structural change.

Existing scholarship on Ikeda’s thought has often emphasized his peace philosophy, Buddhist humanism, and educational thought. However, relatively few studies have systematically examined the relationship between Ikeda’s philosophy and themes such as global citizenship, human rights, environmental protection, and nuclear abolition. Nevertheless, sustained analysis of its direct relevance to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), SDG 17 (Partnerships), SDG 4.7 (ESD and Global Citizenship Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) remains underdeveloped. In particular, few research studies have clarified how interfaith dialogue functions within governance, policy, education, and civil society practice to advance SDG implementation, as well as what challenges and limitations it faces in doing so.

Against this backdrop, the present study advances an interdisciplinary analysis of Ikeda’s philosophy and practice of interfaith dialogue in relation to the SDGs. The guiding research questions are as follows: First, on what philosophical and religious foundations is Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue built, and how is it structurally related to his core concepts of humanism, the dignity of life, and human revolution? Second, how have his interfaith dialogues been concretized and expanded through conversations with figures such as Arnold Toynbee, Linus Pauling, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Johan Galtung, as well as through institutional practices associated with SGI, the IOP, and the Ikeda Center for Peace, learning, and Dialogue? Third, in what ways do these dialogues and practices connect with key SDG targets—particularly SDGs 16, 17, 4, and 10—and what opportunities and limitations does interfaith dialogue present for peacebuilding and global governance in the SDG era?

With regard to scope, this study does not attempt to encompass all of Ikeda’s extensive writings and activities. Instead, it focuses on texts and cases directly relevant to interfaith dialogue: major peace proposals, key dialogue volumes, The Human Revolution, official SGI and institutional publications, and academic literature on Ikeda’s thought. Temporally, the analysis concentrates primarily on the period from the end of the Cold War to the post-SDG era. while engaging earlier contexts only when necessary to clarify the origins and formation of Ikeda’s ideas.

Methodologically, this study employs a qualitative approach integrating literature review, qualitative content analysis, and case studies. First, it extracts core concepts and structural elements from Ikeda’s writings and dialogues and reconstructs their meaning in light of existing scholarship. Second, it examines representative dialogues and institutional practices as concrete enactments of interfaith dialogue. Finally, it evaluates how these philosophical and practical elements connect to SDG discourse, exploring both direct and indirect linkages to SDGs 16, 17, 4, and 10 and paying attention to policy and educational implications.

Following this research agenda, the paper is structured as follows: Chapter II examines the philosophical foundations of Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue—humanism, the dignity of life, and Buddhist concepts of dependent origination and interdependence. Chapter III analyzes major dialogue cases with Toynbee, Pauling, Gorbachev, and Galtung, alongside selected institutional practices associated with SGI, the IOP, and the Ikeda Center. Chapter IV shifts from description to evaluation by connecting these ideas and practices to SDG targets, assessing both their contributions and limitations. Chapter V concludes by synthesizing the findings and proposing implications and future research directions concerning the role of interfaith dialogue in the SDG era.

2. The Philosophical Foundations of Daisaku Ikeda’s Interfaith Dialogue

To understand Daisaku Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue, it is necessary to examine the historical and intellectual context in which his peace philosophy was formed. Ikeda’s thought emerged in response to the turbulent experiences of the mid–twentieth century. His ethical sensibility was shaped by his mentor Josei Toda’s declaration for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the idea of “global nationalism,” which Ikeda regarded as a personal mandate for peacebuilding (Urbain 2010). Carrying forward Toda’s legacy (Strand 2014), Ikeda made cross-religious solidarity and peace practice central to his public vocation. His pacifism does not treat peace as merely the absence of war; rather, it stresses an ethical obligation to resist violence and empathize with the suffering of others, resonating with what Kinoshita (2023) describes as genuine civil disobedience.

Against this backdrop, Ikeda articulated a philosophy grounded in the Buddhist concept of the dignity of life. He argues that positive peace requires inner transformation, which he conceptualizes as human revolution. Interfaith dialogue (IFD) is presented as a concrete method through which such transformation can be cultivated and socially extended. This framework is particularly relevant to SDG 16, which emphasizes peace, justice, and effective institutions.

In an era marked by religious confrontation and violent extremism, Ikeda’s dialogical philosophy offers a framework for conflict transformation. He defines dialogue as “the royal road to peace” and foregrounds dialogical ethics not as a means of others but as a catalyst for self-reflection. The originality of Ikeda’s approach lies in its consistent architecture—inner transformation (human revolution) serves as the starting point, and dialogical engagement functions as the bridge toward broader solidarity (Urbain 2010). This empathy-based approach translates religious pluralism into practices of relationship-building and nonviolent engagement, including in conflict-prone contexts (van der Bij 2017; Kim and Kim 2024).

Ikeda’s humanism is rooted in Nichiren Buddhism and is characterized by the insistence that religion should serve the realization of human dignity. He repeatedly emphasizes that “religion exists for the sake of human beings; human beings do not exist for the sake of religion” (Ikeda 1996). Accordingly, doctrinal superiority is not the primary focus of IFD. Instead, IFD is conceived as a process of identifying and expanding shared foundations of human dignity across traditions (Strand 2014). The concept of human revolution provides the conceptual hinge for this orientation, positing that genuine peace cannot be secured solely through institutional reforms but requires sustained inner transformation that supports ethical agency (Goulah 2020). Through IFD, participants confront tendencies toward exclusivism and cultivate the capacity to act as ethical agents by recognizing the dignity of others. In this way, religious communities are repositioned as active contributors to peace, justice, and human rights.

The principles of universal Buddhahood and the dignity of life provide the metaphysical basis for this humanism. Ikeda argues that every being possesses an inherent potential for wisdom, compassion, and courage and that the suppression of this potential fuels violence and inequality. From this perspective, IFD is not a debate over doctrinal truth claims but a practice of recognizing dignity across difference and building mutual respect (Cicuzza 2022). This orientation aligns with the commitment of SDG 10 to reduce inequalities and “Leave No One Behind,” reframing religion from a potential source of exclusion into a resource for social inclusion and cohesion.

The Soka concept of value creation (sōka) further clarifies the ethical practice of interfaith dialogue. For Ikeda, value creation entails confronting suffering and conflict directly and generating goodness, beauty, and benefit within that reality. Through IFD, religious differences become opportunities for co-discovery rather than boundaries to defend (Ikeda and Matsushita 2004). Dialogue is thus framed as a creative process grounded in empathy and attentive listening, rather than persuasion. Ikeda’s dialogical philosophy is often described as synthesizing Martin Buber’s I–Thou relationality and Jürgen Habermas’s concept of communicative rationality, suggesting an East–West conceptual convergence (Urbain 2010). From this standpoint, religious diversity becomes a source of social vitality rather than conflict.

Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and interdependence extend this humanistic philosophy into a broader relational worldview. Drawing on the Mahāyāna understanding that phenomena exist relationally rather than independently (Strand 2014), Ikeda interprets religious plurality as diverse expressions within an interconnected whole. Human beings, nature, and future generations are inseparable within this relational network. Interdependence, therefore, provides a philosophical basis for the solidarity envisioned in SDG 17 and supports an expanded understanding of peace that includes ecological responsibility and intergenerational ethics.

These philosophical foundations shape the methodology of IFD. This empathy-based approach cultivates listening rather than defensiveness and prioritizes inner relational restoration. In conflict-prone contexts, IFD contributes to the creation of trust and inclusive institutional development, demonstrating its relevance to SDG 16. At the same time, IFD functions as a pedagogical practice aligned with Global Citizenship Education (GCED), exposing participants to cultural diversity and global interdependence while fostering responsibility for shared human challenges (van der Bij 2017).

In sum, Ikeda’s philosophy of interfaith dialogue forms an integrated system grounded in Nichiren Buddhist humanism, the doctrine of the dignity of life, the ethics of value creation, empathic dialogue, and a relational worldview informed by dependent origination and interdependence. Within this framework, IFD is understood not as doctrinal comparison or ceremonial exchange, but as praxis linking human revolution and social transformation to SDGs 16, 17, 4, and 10, offering a model of peace, education, and global solidarity.

3. The Practice and Major Cases of Daisaku Ikeda’s Interfaith Dialogue

Daisaku Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue (IFD) is not merely an abstract theory but an action-oriented model developed through dialogue, institutional platforms, and civil society initiatives associated with SGI. Over several decades, Ikeda has engaged scholars, political leaders, and peace activists worldwide in discussions on war, inequality, civilizational crisis, and the future of humanity. These engagements are documented in dialogue volumes as well as institutional practices.

This chapter examines representative cases of these practices across three interrelated levels: personal dialogues with global intellectuals and leaders, institutional research and educational infrastructures, and civil society practice. Each case is discussed with reference to its functional relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

First, Ikeda’s dialogues with global intellectuals and leaders illustrate the personal practice dimension of his IFD model. Through sustained conversations with figures such as Arnold Toynbee, Aurelio Peccei (Ikeda and Peccei 1991), Johan Galtung, and Aleksandr Serebrov, he addressed issues including war, nuclear threats, structural violence, and civilizational crisis. These dialogues articulate a vision that connects inner transformation—expressed through the concept of “human revolution”—to public responsibility and global solidarity (Ikeda and Toynbee 1989; Ikeda and Galtung 1995; Ikeda and Serebrov 2004). His engagements with political and civic leaders such as Zhou Enlai, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Henry Kissinger, Rosa Parks, and Wangari Maathai further demonstrate how dialogue can transcend ideological, political, and racial divisions (Maehara 2007, pp. 198–99; Ikeda and Gorbachev 2005).

These exchanges were not merely interpersonal encounters but functioned as arenas in which Ikeda’s philosophy of peace was tested and articulated. By locating the roots of conflict in distortions of the inner life, he maintained that sustainable peace requires reflective ethical agency grounded in recognition of the dignity of life (Miura 2020). Ikeda consistently emphasized that peace cannot be secured solely through agreements among political elites but must be embodied in everyday consciousness and practice (Miura 2025; Kim 2019). In this sense, these dialogues served as public forums linking the concepts of human revolution, the dignity of life, and global solidarity. Viewed from the perspective of the SDGs, these interactions demonstrate how interfaith dialogue can operate as interpersonal praxis contributing to conflict transformation and inclusive peacebuilding, particularly in relation to SDG 16, while also modeling cross-sector collaboration among intellectual and civic actors, consistent with SDG 17.

A second example can be found in the activities of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP), which provide an institutional illustration of how interfaith dialogue can be sustained through research and intercivilizational exchange. Established in 1962 and later relocated to Soka University in 1986, the IOP has functioned as a platform for comparative religion and academic exchange. Through its activities, dialogue is institutionalized as an ongoing process of knowledge production rather than a series of episodic encounters.

A notable development was the conclusion of an academic exchange agreement with ISTAC–IIUM in Malaysia, which included a formal session on “Dialogue between Islam and Buddhism.” This initiative represents an expansion of interfaith dialogue into Buddhist–Islamic institutional engagement and broadens its scope beyond conventional axes of dialogue. In addition to academic collaboration, the IOP has promoted public-facing cultural initiatives such as the international exhibition The Lotus Sutra: A Message of Peace and Harmonious Coexistence. By presenting the Lotus Sutra as part of humanity’s shared spiritual heritage, these initiatives translate religious thought into accessible forms of intercultural discourse. Through its academic journals and sustained research programs, the IOP embeds dialogue within scholarly infrastructure. In relation to the SDGs, this institutional framework illustrates how interfaith dialogue can function as a form of intercivilizational partnership supporting SDG 17, while also contributing indirectly to social cohesion associated with SDG 16 and SDG 10.

A third case is represented by the Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue, which demonstrates how dialogical philosophy can be translated into civil society education in North America. Through dialogue forums, seminars, and youth programs, the Center creates deliberative spaces that bring together participants from different religions, races, generations, and professional backgrounds. Ikeda has defined dialogue not merely as an exchange of views but as a “process of mutual inner transformation of life.” In anniversary messages delivered to the Center, he has repeatedly emphasized the transformative potential of youth engagement and literature in cultivating civic imagination. The Center’s programs therefore operationalize dialogue as a form of civic pedagogy aligned with Global Citizenship Education (GCED). From the perspective of the SDGs, this case demonstrates how interfaith dialogue can function as a pedagogical practice supporting SDG 4—particularly target 4.7, concerning GCED and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)—while also contributing to inclusion and social trust relevant to SDG 16 and network-building consistent with SDG 17.

A fourth example is provided by the activities of SGI itself, which represent the civil society practice dimension of Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue (Soka Gakkai Kyougakubu 2003). Established in 1975 as an international federation and granted consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 1983, SGI has engaged in a wide range of initiatives, including refugee support, human rights advocacy, nuclear disarmament campaigns, and education for sustainable development. Through engagement with United Nations processes, public exhibitions, and civil society reporting, SGI demonstrates how faith-based actors can participate in norm diffusion and global governance (Ito 2020; Yoo 2022). Cultural initiatives—including exhibitions organized by the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum and international music programs promoted by the Min-On Concert Association—further translate dialogical values into public cultural practice. Rather than cataloguing these activities exhaustively, this study treats them as representative mechanisms through which dialogue-based ethics enter the public sphere and contribute to intercultural understanding (Ikeda 2003; Ikeda 2006). In terms of the SDGs, these activities illustrate how faith-based civil society can contribute simultaneously to SDG 16 (peace and justice), SDG 17 (partnerships), SDG 4.7 (global citizenship education), and SDG 10 (inclusion and reduced inequalities).

Taken together, these cases demonstrate that Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue operates through a multilayered structure encompassing personal engagement, institutional research, and civil society practice. The philosophical foundations discussed in Chapter 2—including human revolution, the dignity of life, value creation, and interdependence—are translated into concrete programs, institutional infrastructures, and civic initiatives. The following chapter therefore shifts from the descriptive presentation of cases to an evaluative analysis of how these mechanisms correspond to SDG targets and pathways.

4. Structural Linkages Between Daisaku Ikeda’s Interfaith Dialogue and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This chapter theorizes Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue (IFD) not as a mere “meeting of goodwill,” but as a peacebuilding infrastructure relevant to SDG implementation. Moving beyond the empirical cases examined in Chapter III, it provides an evaluative mapping of how IFD connects structurally to specific SDG mechanisms and targets. To this end, the chapter first situates IFD within key conceptual frameworks in peace studies and interfaith dialogue research, and then analyzes structural linkages with SDGs 16, 17, 4, and 10, while noting selected indirect connections with other goals.

4.1. Theoretical Framework: The Intersection of Peace Studies, Interfaith Dialogue, and Sustainable Development

Within peace studies, Johan Galtung distinguishes between direct, structural, and cultural violence. He defines peace not merely as the absence of violence but as “positive peace,” a condition in which just social structures and human dignity are realized (Galtung 1967). Similarly, Cortright (2008) emphasizes that peace should be understood as a long-term process that requires the transformation of institutions, cultural norms, and human consciousness. These perspectives imply that interfaith dialogue can function as an important mechanism for dismantling structural and cultural violence and for advancing positive peace beyond the level of doctrinal comparison.

Research on interfaith dialogue further reinforces this interpretation. Khan (2005) proposes the concept of “relational dialogue,” arguing that dialogue can interrupt cycles of hostility by transforming adversarial narratives into relationships of trust. Likewise, Esposito and Mogahed (2007), drawing on empirical research, demonstrate how stereotypes and misconceptions about religious communities can generate discrimination and policy distortions. They therefore argue that dialogue grounded in mutual respect can serve as a corrective form of public discourse. Taken together, these studies indicate that interfaith dialogue operates not only at the level of community reconciliation but also within broader policy and public spheres.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015) provide a global normative framework that integrates peace, prosperity, planet, partnership, and people. Within this framework, SDGs 16 and 17 emphasize governance and partnership structures that support peaceful and inclusive societies, while SDG 4.7 highlights the importance of education that internalizes these values through Global Citizenship Education (GCED) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The fact that there is a scholarship connected to Ikeda’s educational philosophy further clarifies the relationship between dialogue, education, and sustainable development. For example, Hope and Joy in Education (Nuñez and Goulah 2021) highlights “hope” and “joy” as ethical and emotional resources that enable educators to sustain transformative practice even under structural pressures. Similarly, Peacebuilding Through Dialogue (Stearns 2019) frames dialogue as a modality of human and conflict transformation that operates across both educational and organizational contexts.

When these strands of scholarship are considered together, Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue can be analytically understood through four interrelated dimensions. First, there is a normative dimension in which values such as the dignity of life, human dignity, nonviolence, and solidarity resonate strongly with the human-centered vision underlying the SDGs (Ikeda 2015; United Nations 2015). Second, a dialogical dimension can be identified in which the expansion of understanding, recognition, and empathy toward others contributes to the dismantling of cultural violence and to the creation of new narratives for peaceful coexistence (Ikeda and Toynbee 1989; Ikeda and Galtung 1995). Third, an institutional dimension emerges through organizations such as SGI, the Institute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP), and the Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue, which provide platforms for research, policy discussion, and educational networks related to the SDGs (Soka Gakkai International n.d.; Toda Peace Institute n.d.). Finally, a practical dimension can be observed in concrete campaigns, exhibitions, and educational initiatives addressing issues such as nuclear disarmament, human rights, environmental protection, education, and gender equality, all of which contribute substantively to the realization of the SDGs.

4.2. SDG 16: Positive Peace, Justice, and Interfaith Dialogue as “Inner Revolution”

SDG 16 foregrounds the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies; access to justice for all; and effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. In Galtung’s framework, this entails not only the reduction of direct violence but also the dismantling of structural and cultural violence necessary for the realization of “positive peace” (Galtung 1967). Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue(IFD), as defined in Chapter II, can be analyzed as a mechanism linking inner transformation to relational and institutional change. This section clarifies how that linkage contributes to the objectives of SDG 16.

First, Ikeda locates the roots of social and civilizational crises in accumulations of greed, hatred, and ignorance within the human inner life. He presents “human revolution” as the process of overcoming these tendencies (Miura 2020, pp. 64–65). In this framework, interfaith dialogue is not oriented toward refuting other doctrines; rather, it is directed toward listening to the life histories, suffering, and collective memories of others. Through this dialogical encounter, the other is recognized as a bearer of dignity rather than an adversary. This shift functions as an ethical and psychological form of peacebuilding, weakening emotions that sustain cycles of violence and thereby supporting the inclusive societies objective of SDG 16.

Second, grounded in the dignity of life philosophy derived from the Lotus Sutra tradition, Ikeda characterizes war, nuclear weapons, discrimination, and environmental destruction as manifestations of disregard for life (Park 2017, p. 62; Ikeda 1990). This position resonates with peace movement ethics emphasizing nonviolence and human dignity (Cortright 2008). Interfaith dialogue thus becomes a process of translating moral respect for life into shared public language. For example, in Choose Peace (Ikeda and Galtung 1995), dialogue between Ikeda and Johan Galtung brings Buddhist compassion into constructive engagement with Western peace studies, mutually clarifying the concept of positive peace. In this way, IFD reframes religious diversity as a resource for justice-oriented peace rather than as a driver of cultural violence.

Third, Ikeda advances a distinctive perspective on institutional peace governance. He treats peace not primarily as the product of elite negotiation, but as a bottom-up process in which changes in everyday consciousness precede institutional reform (Maehara 2007, pp. 198–99; Miura 2025, pp. 53–54). His peace proposals and dialogues with national leaders repeatedly foreground institutional dimensions of peace, including human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and nuclear disarmament. From this standpoint, IFD contributes not only to interpersonal reconciliation but also to shaping the normative language through which institutions justify inclusive governance, thereby reinforcing the structural ambitions of SDG 16.

Fourth, dialogue-based peacebuilding scholarship emphasizes relationship reconstruction and narrative transformation rather than mere agreement-making (Stearns 2019). Ikeda’s IFD applies this logic to interreligious and intercivilizational contexts. In dialogue addressing Japan–Korea relations, Northeast Asian peace, and post-Cold War order, Ikeda underscores the importance of confronting historical wounds while fostering future-oriented cooperation grounded in mutual respect (Ikeda and Gorbachev 2005). Such dialogical engagement demonstrates how IFD can operate in contexts marked by cultural violence and identity polarization.

Taken together, these elements suggest that Ikeda’s IFD functions as a multilevel peacebuilding mechanism operating simultaneously at inner, relational, institutional, and discursive levels. This multilevel structure explains its analytical relevance to SDG 16.

The following section turns from conflict transformation to partnership formation, examining how IFD contributes to the cooperative architecture envisioned in SDG 17.

4.3. SDG 17: MultiStakeholder Partnerships and Trans-Religious Solidarity

SDG 17 “Partnerships for the Goals” calls for collaboration among governments, international organizations, civil society, the private sector, academia, and religious communities. In SDG governance debates, religion is often treated either as a risk factor or as a marginal actor. Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue (IFD) offers an alternative framing by repositioning religion as a potential partner in solutions, particularly in contexts where cooperation requires moral legitimacy and cross-cultural trust. This section evaluates how the mechanisms of IFD correspond to the partnership logic of SDG 17.

First, Ikeda’s dialogues with global intellectuals and leaders may be understood as forms of forming “intellectual partnerships.” These partnerships cross boundaries among religion, philosophy, science, politics, and social movements. Choose Life (Ikeda and Toynbee 1989), his dialogue with Arnold Toynbee, exemplifies intercivilizational engagement between Western historical reflection and East Asian Mahᾱyᾱna Buddhist thought on questions of history, ethics, and civilizational futures. Similarly, dialogues with scientists such as Linus Pauling and Joseph Rotblat illustrate how technical knowledge and moral responsibility can be brought into constructive alignment around nuclear disarmament (Pauling 1995; Ikeda and Rotblat 2006). The dialogue with Gorbachev functions as a value-based political conversation addressing the reconstruction of global order in the post-Cold War era (Ikeda and Gorbachev 2005). These examples demonstrate how IFD can generate cooperative vocabularies across otherwise fragmented epistemic communities.

Second, institutional infrastructures extend these intellectual partnerships into sustained networks. Organizations such as SGI, the Institute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP), the Toda Peace Institute, and the Ikeda Center provide platforms for ongoing dialogue, research, and policy engagement. SGI’s consultative status with the United Nations and its annual peace proposals illustrate how faith-based civil society actors participate in global governance processes related to nuclear disarmament, climate change, refugees, and human rights (Soka Gakkai International n.d.; Toda Peace Institute n.d.). Rather than treating these institutions merely as historical entities, this analysis interprets them as partnership mechanisms that stabilize dialogue through publication, convening power, and cross-sector programming. Such institutionalization reflects the durable cooperation envisioned in SDG 17.

Third, in Peace, Justice, and the Poetic Mind, Ikeda and Rees (2018) emphasize the importance of imagination and empathy as foundations for peace. This “poetic mind” may be understood as a cultural infrastructure for partnership. Partnerships often falter not because actors lack technical plans, but because they lack mutual recognition and trust. By foregrounding empathy and imaginative identification with others, IFD cultivates the affective and symbolic conditions necessary for sustainable collaboration among diverse religious and cultural communities.

Fourth, dialogue scholarship associated with the Ikeda Center and Peacebuilding Through Dialogue (Stearns 2019) underscores that dialogue is not merely a communication technique but a methodology for designing cooperative structures across education, organizations, local communities, and international relations. In this sense, IFD can be interpreted as a form of “partnership pedagogy,” supporting the formation of shared language and shared responsibility among diverse stakeholders.

Taken together, these elements indicate that Ikeda’s IFD operates as a partnership-enabling mechanism spanning epistemic, institutional, and cultural domains. It clarifies how religion may function not as a peripheral actor but as a bridge among sectors, thereby reinforcing the cooperative architecture envisioned in SDG 17.

The next section shifts from partnership architecture to educational formation, examining how IFD contributes to SDG 4.7 and to broader processes of value internalization and inequality reduction.

4.4. SDG 4.7 and SDG 10: Global Citizenship Education, Hope and Joy, and Reducing Inequalities

SDG 4.7 establishes the following target: by 2030, all learners should acquire the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes necessary to promote sustainable development, including human rights, gender equality, a culture of peace and nonviolence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity (United Nations 2015). Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue provides both theoretical and practical resources for this agenda because it functions as a structured practice of encountering difference. At the same time, it bears relevance to SDG 10 by addressing the cultural and discursive conditions that generate exclusion and inequality. This section evaluates these linkages.

First, Hope and Joy in Education (Nuñez and Goulah 2021) reconstructs Ikeda’s educational philosophy through the concepts of “hope” and “joy.” Hope is framed not as escapism but as a practical energy that confronts suffering and sustains commitment to transformation. Joy is understood as the inner fulfillment experienced through contributing to the growth of others and the common good (Ikeda and Harding 2013). Interfaith dialogue can be treated as an educational setting in which these dispositions are cultivated. When learners from different religious and cultural backgrounds encounter one another’s narratives of suffering and resilience, they practice attentive listening and dialogical response rather than stereotyping or withdrawal. Such encounters support the affective, ethical, and action-oriented competencies central to Global Citizenship (GCED) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), thereby contributing directly to SDG 4.7.

Second, Ikeda’s concept of “human revolution” resonates with transformative learning, which involves critical reflection on existing assumptions and frames of reference, leading to more inclusive worldviews and reconstructed social roles. IFD provides a practical space in which such learning can occur, as participants are required to engage with differences without reducing the other to a threat. In this sense, IFD operationalizes what SDG 4.7 implies but does not specify in detail: the cultivation of action-oriented capacities for peace and sustainability (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2025).

Dialogue becomes a formative process through which learners integrate cognitive reflection with ethical agency.

Third, in relation to SDG 10, interfaith dialogue functions as a cultural and discursive intervention addressing inequality rooted in religion, race, culture, and gender. Esposito and Mogahed (2007) demonstrate how stereotypes and misconceptions can translate into discriminatory policies and social exclusion. In this context, dialogue operates not merely at the interpersonal level but as a public act reshaping social perception. Ikeda’s IFD reframes the religious other from a “threat” to a “partner in dialogue” and insists on horizontal recognition (Kim 2019, p. 212). This orientation provides ethical criteria for educational, media, and policy institutions seeking to protect dignity rights and promote inclusive participation.

Fourth, the concept of the “poetic mind” developed in Peace, Justice, and Poetic Mind (Ikeda and Rees 2018) emphasizes imagination, empathy, and sensibility as capacities necessary for justice. In terms of SDG 4.7, these capacities complement critical thinking and civic knowledge by strengthening relational awareness. A common limitation in GCED and ESD practice is the overemphasis on information and skills without sufficient attention to relational and affective formation. Dialogical learning activities—such as engaging testimonies, narratives, and literature from diverse traditions—enable learners to perceive the other not as an abstraction but as a moral presence. Such recognition disrupts cultural violence that normalizes inequality and reinforces the inclusion of SDG 10.

Taken together, these considerations position IFD as both pedagogy and cultural intervention. It supports SDG 4.7 through dialogical learning, transformative reflection, and ethical agency, while contributing to SDG 10 by reshaping narratives of exclusion into frameworks of recognition and shared dignity.

The following section considers indirect linkages between IFD and SDGs, maintaining an evaluative focus on structural relevance.

4.5. Indirect Linkages with Other SDGs

Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue is also indirectly connected with Sustainable Development Goals related to the environment, poverty, health, and gender equality. This connection does not assume that dialogue alone can transform material indicators or immediately change socioeconomic outcomes. Rather, the relationship operates through the normative and institutional pathways outlined earlier in this chapter. In this sense, dialogue shapes priorities, reframes moral responsibility, and facilitates coalition-building across sectors, thereby creating enabling conditions for broader social and policy change.

Ikeda has repeatedly argued that nuclear arms competition and excessive military expenditures intensify poverty and inequality by diverting resources away from education, healthcare, and environmental protection (Ikeda 1996; Krieger 2003). For this reason, he links nuclear disarmament to the broader framework of human security and sustainable development. In his dialogue with Hazel Henderson, Ikeda further contends that economic activity must recognize ecological limits while simultaneously advancing social justice. Their discussions highlight the importance of value-level transformations that support ecological transition and sustainable economic systems (Ikeda and Henderson 2002; Henderson 2011). In this way, the logic of “human revolution,” originally articulated as a transformation of individual consciousness, is extended to questions of institutional design, economic structures, and everyday lifestyle transformation.

The activities of Soka Gakkai International (SGI) provide additional illustrations of how faith-based civil society can engage with multiple SDG domains simultaneously. Environmental campaigns, international exhibitions, disaster-relief solidarity initiatives, and educational programs addressing human rights and gender equality demonstrate practical forms of engagement that connect ethical dialogue with public action. This study does not claim that such activities translate directly into measurable SDG indicators. Rather, they are treated as evidence of potential pathways through which dialogue-oriented civil society practice can intersect with broader development agendas, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and the environmental goals of SDGs 13–15, which address climate action, life below water, and life on land (Soka Gakkai International n.d.; Toda Peace Institute n.d.).

Taken together, these observations suggest that Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue supports what may be conceptualized as a Human-Centered Interfaith Dialogue–SDG Linkage Model (HC-IFD for SDGs). Within this framework, the primary analytical focus remains on SDGs 16, 17, 4, and 10, while connections to other SDGs emerge indirectly through a multilayered process. More specifically, the model conceptualizes the role of religion in contributing to sustainable development through four mutually reinforcing dimensions: the normative articulation of values such as the dignity of life, the dialogical reconstruction of relationships across differences, the institutional development of governance and partnership platforms, and the practical implementation of campaigns, educational programs, and civic initiatives.

Having mapped these linkages, the concluding section synthesizes the theoretical contribution of the HC-IFD framework, discusses its potential policy implications, and identifies directions for future research.

5. Conclusions: Academic and Policy Implications of Ikeda’s Interfaith Dialogue and Future Tasks

This paper has reconstructed Daisaku Ikeda’s philosophy and practice of interfaith dialogue at the intersection of peace studies, religious studies, education, and sustainable development research. It has also evaluated how these elements connect to the SDGs. In doing so, this study has treated IFD not as symbolic goodwill but as a set of mechanisms that can support peacebuilding, inclusion, and partnership formation.

The analysis has drawn on dialogue volumes (e.g., Ikeda and Galtung 1995), research and education scholarships associated with the Ikeda Center (e.g., Hope and Joy in Education; Peacebuilding Through Dialogue; Peace, Justice, and the Poetic Mind), and selected materials from SGI and the Toda Peace Institute. These sources have been used to show how Ikeda’s IFD intersects with global discourses on norms, governance, education, and peacebuilding rather than remaining confined to intra-traditional discourse.

5.1. Academic Contribution: Theorizing “Human-Centered Interfaith Dialogue (HC-IFD)”

This paper conceptualizes Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue as “Human-Centered Interfaith Dialogue (HC-IFD).” The HC-IFD framework reconstructs the concepts of the dignity of life, human revolution, and Soka value creation by placing them in dialogue with the peace studies concept of positive peace (Galtung 1967) and with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a global normative governance framework (United Nations 2015). In this sense, HC-IFD can be understood as an integrated analytical model composed of several interrelated dimensions that link ethical values, dialogical processes, institutional structures, and concrete practices.

First, the framework contains a normative dimension that emphasizes values such as the dignity of life, nonviolence, and solidarity as the ethical foundations of peaceful coexistence. Second, it incorporates a dialogical dimension in which mutual recognition, empathy, and what Ikeda describes as the “poetic imagination” function as mechanisms for reconstructing relationships across cultural and religious differences. Third, the framework includes an institutional dimension involving governance arrangements that connect religious organizations, states, international institutions, and civil society networks. Finally, it contains a practical dimension expressed through concrete campaigns and educational initiatives in areas such as peacebuilding, human rights advocacy, environmental protection, education, gender equality, and nuclear disarmament.

Within existing research on interfaith dialogue, Ikeda’s thought has often been analyzed primarily within the contexts of Buddhist peace philosophy or the Soka Gakkai movement (Park 2017; Miura 2020, 2025). The present study approaches his work differently by situating it within the broader discourse linking peacebuilding and sustainable development under the framework of the SDGs. In doing so, it complements strands of interfaith dialogue theory that have historically focused on Christian–Muslim or Catholic–Protestant relations (Armstrong 2006; Khan 2005), while also highlighting the potential contributions that East Asian Buddhist traditions can make to contemporary discussions of peace, governance, and sustainable development.

From an educational perspective, Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue can also be interpreted—consistent with the discussion in Chapter IV—as a model of transformative learning relevant to Global Citizenship Education (GCED) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (Nuñez and Goulah 2021). In this regard, the framework provides conceptual resources for curriculum development in formal education, community learning initiatives, and civic education programs. The notion of the “poetic mind” further suggests that GCED and ESD require not only civic knowledge and practical skills but also imaginative and affective capacities that enable individuals to sustain recognition and empathy across cultural and social differences (Ikeda and Rees 2018).

If the HC-IFD framework proposed in this study is analytically coherent, the next question concerns its potential policy relevance. The following subsection, therefore, translates this conceptual framework into institutional implications for SDG implementation at multiple levels.

5.2. Policy Implications: Institutionalizing Interfaith Dialogue for the SDGs

This paper identifies policy implications of Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue for achieving SDGs 16, 17, 4, and 10 at four levels. The focus is not on treating IFD as a substitute for political or economic reforms. It is on clarifying how dialogue can function as a complementary infrastructure for inclusion, partnership, and civic learning.

At the level of international organizations, UN bodies and related institutions may benefit from treating faith-based actors not only as risks or peripheral participants but also as potential partners in SDG implementation. Dialogue-based cooperative programs focusing on areas such as conflict transformation, human rights, refugees, the environment, and nuclear disarmament can be designed. Experiences associated with SGI, the Toda Peace Institute, and the Ikeda Center can be treated as reference points for such program design.

At the level of national and local governments, interfaith forums and civic education programs involving religious leaders and civil society can be incorporated into peace and integration strategies in conflict-prone settings. Here, the people-centered logic emphasized in Ikeda’s approach supports bottom-up peacebuilding that complements elite-driven diplomacy and top-down processes (Miura 2025). Local governments can also work with schools, religious institutions, and NGOs to support dialogue-based GCED/ESD initiatives, thereby linking SDG 4.7 with SDG 16.

At the level of education policy and practice, schools and universities can incorporate interfaith dialogue components in GCED and ESD curricula. This can include structured reading and discussion of dialogue texts and related scholarship, followed by dialogue simulations or project-based learning. Such designs move beyond knowledge transmission and emphasize concrete capacities of listening, empathy, and nonviolent conflict engagement.

At the level of religious communities and civil society, religious organizations can collaborate with other faith and civic actors around SDG-relevant issues such as poverty, the environment, human rights, gender, refugees, and peace. In this process, the dignity of life principle and responsibility as citizens provide ethical criteria for maintaining religious identity while supporting the common good (Ikeda 2015; Kim 2019). HC-IFD can be used as a reference framework for designing and evaluating such initiatives.

Policy implications remain incomplete without clarifying research limits and future tasks. The next subsection therefore specifies methodological and thematic limitations and outlines directions for subsequent research.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Tasks

This study has several limitations: First, a significant portion of the analysis relies on writings and documents produced by Ikeda and related institutions. This means that the paper prioritizes internal textual reconstruction and may not fully capture external debates surrounding the movement. Future research can broaden the evidentiary base by integrating more diverse materials and perspectives.

Second, because the paper relies primarily on qualitative content analysis and theoretical reconstruction, it does not empirically test impacts on SDG indicators. Future studies should therefore adopt mixed methods and conduct case studies in specific countries, cities, or regions. Such work could examine how dialogue-oriented initiatives intersect with measurable outcomes in peace, education, environment, and inequality.

Third, this study focuses largely on offline dialogue and traditional organizational forms. It does not sufficiently address digital citizenship, online hate, or the ways in which religious and cultural conflicts spread through social media. Future research should connect HC-IFD to dialogue and civic learning in digital spaces, particularly where digital environments amplify polarization.

Fourth, this study does not fully analyze IFD and the SDGs through intersectional lenses, including gender, generation, race, and class. Future research could investigate how women, youth, and minority religious leaders are included or excluded in dialogue processes. It could also examine whether victims’ and marginalized voices are structurally centered in dialogue programs. Such analysis would be directly relevant to SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Inclusive Institutions).

5.4. Concluding Remarks: Religion and Interfaith Dialogue in the SDG Era

Ikeda’s interfaith dialogue offers theoretical and practical resources for rethinking the roles that religion can play in the SDG era. It reframes religion not only as a potential source of conflict but also as a potential agent for the dignity of life, peace, justice, and solidarity. In this paper, that claim has been specified through a structural mapping of mechanisms relevant to SDGs 16, 17, 4.7, and 10.

The HC-IFD for SDGs model proposed here is intended as an analytic tool. It organizes the contribution of interfaith dialogue through four dimensions—norms, dialogue, institutions, and practice—without reducing SDG implementation to dialogue alone. As such, the model can serve as a platform for future interdisciplinary research and for policy design that connects religion, peacebuilding, education, and global governance in pursuit of sustainable peace and human-centered development.