Talk:Dai Gohonzon

Article start

I am starting a page on the Dai Gohonzon. Please help if you like. Thanks.

Faith--Faith Likewater 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by an editor on the Nichiren article talk page, I moved this information from it's original page (Nichiren) to this one to create a new page specifically on the Dai Gohonzon because the Dai Gohonzon is only considered legitimate by one Nichiren Shoshu school (the Fuji branch) and therefore does not warrant a large section in an article on Nichiren's life. Rather, it warrants it's own separate page and/or a mention in an article about controversies related to Nichiren. The article which originally contained this material listed the Dai Gohonzon under the heading "Completion of Mission in the World" which is a subjective, not scholarly, heading. In any case, this "Dai Gohonzon" page is in progress, not intended to be complete at this point.--Faith Likewater 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help clean up this page by using in-line citations and removing text that is biased toward a particular Nichiren sect's dogma, traditions, and legends. Most of the current text is not cited and verified, or it is not cited and verified in the words of Nichiren, his contemporaries, or scholars whose work relates to him, his time, and/or his teachings. Thanks much. --Faith Likewater 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working from and citing primary sources is against Wikipedia policy; see WP:ATT. Note that if you write based on your interpretation of primary sources, rather than describe what’s presented in secondary ones, you will be leaving your hard work open to unconditional removal by other editors who will cite original research (see WP:NOR) as grounds.

Further, depending on what you mean, removing text that is “biased toward a particular Nichiren sect’s dogma” is potentially also against Wikipedia policy: the point is not to remove descriptions of one or the other school’s versions of a story, it is to balance them with descriptions of opposing versions of the story; see WP:NPOV.

Fwiw, I think your removal of the section on the Dai-Gohonzon from the Nichiren article is also undesirable: The story was already balanced out (to some extent, at least—it was not very well done, I concede) with presentation of opposing views. If anything, that article needs further citations (not “cites,” whatever they are) to substantiate the descriptions of both sides’ versions, not deletion of “bias.” Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim,

You said: "Working from and citing primary sources is against Wikipedia policy"

However, these two sources--one primary, one secondary--are listed as references for the Dai Gohonzon article because I lifted them straight from the original Nichiren article which I didn't write:

The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Soka Gakkai, 1999 (available online here.)

The Life of Nichiren Daishonin. Kirimura, Yasuji. NSIC, 1980

Hence, the original author of the Dai Gohonzon info in the Nichiren article worked from a primary source (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin), not me. Or perhaps it wasn't Nichiren's words being referenced but rather those of the book's editors as they appear in the background info.

Anyway, I left the followiing two sources that are on the Nichiren page off of the listed references for the Dai Gohonzon article. But I have no problem listing them here. I just left them out because it appeared to me that all the info from the Dai Gohonzon section came from the 1st two books:

The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, hard cover, Burton Watson, Translator, Soka Gakkai, 2005, ISBN 4-412-01286-7

The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism (Seikyo Press), Tokyo, 2002. Available on line here

What needs to happen is that the page numbers that the Dai Gohonzon info comes from in all 4 of these sources, or other sources, needs to be a part of in-line citations in this article and in the Nichren article, too. That was why I added the tag requesting in-line citations. Adding them would simply make the article seem more encyclopedic and less like a pitch from a particular sect.

You wrote: "the point is not to remove descriptions of one or the other school’s versions of a story." I know that. But a real balanced view of the Dai Gohonzon requires an article devoted to the subject because the subject is very weighty. I disagree with you that the Dai Gohonozon info as it appeared in the original Nichiren article needs to be there. Perhaps the Dai Gohonzon info presented in a different format would work in that article. For instance in a section called "Dai Gohonzon" or one called "Nichiren Controversies." The problem is that the Nichren article is already long. And a separate article on the Dai Gohonzon provides room for a full, balanced exploration of the topic.--Faith Likewater 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Jim you wrote: "not “cites,” whatever they are" but I have no idea what you mean.--Faith Likewater 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namu-myoho-renge-kyo

I've changed the sentence that said "the characters Nam-myoho-renge-kyo", because it's impossible to write 'Nam' in Kanji. "Namu-myoho-renge-kyo" is what is written on every Gohonzon, and I've changed it to that. Steve (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

This article is very biased, and lacking citations. - Steve (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to remove the NPOV template as specifics are not provided, please use {{POV-section}} or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. - Roy Boy 21:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info, will come back to it tomorrow and see what I can do. Please feel free to add to/amend what I added as necessary. Steve (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"More than one" section

I think this section needs some work. As well as researching the claim that the Mannen Kugo Daihonzon was inscribed for "all people". Is this section even relevent? Steve (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "Particulars of various Gohonzons may slightly differ, however, all these objects share the basic components of what constitutes the Object of Devotion."

Of course, every Gohonzon is essentially the same, the issue with the "Dai-Gohonzon" is that it is supposed to be superior to all others. Is there a record of another Gohonzon inscribed for "all people"? If there is, then why isn't a citation given for it? Steve (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Another Dai Mandala" section

I replaced the ambiguous title of MORE THAN ONE by an accurate, relevant and informative title "Another Dai Mandala" - as claimed by the temple in which it is enshrined. What is "More than One"? many things are more than one, number 5 is More than One, three people are more than one... I think that the choice for the words "More than One" is rather not convenient. I also made the text simple and clearly referenced.SafwanZabalawi (talk)SafwanZabalawi —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Questions about the Dai Gohonzon section

Do the two external links belong in the article? Also, the fraughtwithperil link is to a blog, which is against Wikipedia's policy as far as I know. ~ Stephen (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is only reasonable to admit that "Questions about the DaiGohonzon" belong to the article about the DaiGohonzon.

It is also important to acknowledge the importance of presentation of the arguments (pro- and against) in both camps regarding the subject.

Both external links express the detailed arguments brought by followers of various schools. The fraughtwithperil source expresses the teachings of various Buddhist schools - some prominent priets in Nichiren Shu and in Hokke Kempon. I do not agree with that source but to deny their right to express their views is against broadmindedness and against Wikipedia's impartial approach. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safwan, my concern with the link to FWP is that it is a blog, not a published work. Robin is very knowledgable, but I don't think he is 'officially' regarded as an expert or historian of Nichiren Buddhism. I'll leave it to you and others to decide if the link belongs in the article. ~ Stephen (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, Setting aside the FWP, I think you have a tendency, to consider "published work" as preferred to "Web resources". In reality, Web resources - especially if they contain verifiable and referenced citations... offer the reader a direct link, giving a solid support of the referenced text. Web resources ARE published items, in the general meaning of the word, not necessarily restricted to paper-based publishing. Paper published books - except the Google published ones - are not practically or readily verifiable - and their quotes can be misleading. Am I going to buy a certain book to verify the truth of its reference on Wiki? What do you think, Steve? Of course published books are beneficial as references but so are web resources containing verifiable and treaceable information. Let's not forget that Wikipedia itself is a published work on the cyberspace. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safwan, I think websites are OK [as citations] if it is the official website of the org. that is being discussed. For instance, Daisaku Ikeda is President of SGI, a citation from SGI's official website is fine. Other sources can get dubious; I always think it's best to reference to an independent source on some issues. Does that make sense? Even SGI's Dictionary of Buddhism, which I do rely on heavily, isn't the best on some subjects, because it is not neutral on issues like the D/G, but is written from SGI's perspective. ~ Stephen (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steve for your explanation. What you say is quiet reasonable. Now, in regard to this particular subject of the DaiGohonzon, what is the "independent" side? Is it Nichiren Shu or who? I think that to be impartial we should include both opposed perspectives - as they are presented by traceable sources and leave the reader in a clear picture without accenting one side over the other. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, that it's best to include both sides of the argument, as you have in many places. I'm not trying to 'step on your toes' or anything, I hope I'm not giving that impression. I see what you mean about an independent source, I think it will be very hard to find one regarding the D/G. I'll leave it to you to decide what's best here. ~ Stephen (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the Dai-Gohonzon section

I'm not sure about the SGI quotations in this section. Maybe they'd belong in a new section called: "Dai-Gohonzon in Nichiren sects" or something like that. Also, parts of this article seem like an attempt to defend the Dai-Gohonzon, maybe that would belong in a seperate section, too? ~ Stephen (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the mentioned SGI quotations was necessary to correct the information about how various schools view the DaiGohonzon. Your suggestion for a new distribution or sections for the article may provide a new architecture for the article, but the priority is for statement, in whatever section, to be simply correct. referenced and consistent with the truth.

Please be clear and specific about your impression that the article seems to be "defending" the DaiGohonzon (and - defending against whom?). Impressions aside, the valid criterion in Wikipedia (and other media) is whether the information is correct or false. If you think that something is incorrect in the article, then you have to prove that it is inconsistent with the truth. I will be clear and specific in the following example about what I mean by the truth: SGI does not consider the daiGohonzon as superior to any other Gohonzon, and this is the truth about SGi teaching in this aspect. It is firmly referenced. This means that it was incorrect to state the opposite, as happened before. To enter incorrect information in the article (as happened before my correction to it) may have been caused by lack of proper knowledge but now should be welcomed with an impartial mind. Thank you for your contribution. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some Editorialising in the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch ~ Stephen (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify these "some Editorializing" areas in the article.

According to Wikipedia Manual of Style, Editorializing is based on one's own (personal) POV, such as including the words: interestingly, clearly, certainly, with no doubt, of course, happily, tragically & so forth.... If there is such a trend in the article then I agree with you, it should be changed. Thank you always . SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://markrogow.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-daigohonzon-is-fake-updated-for.html If these facts and reasonings are not brought forth in the article, the article can not be said to be balanced. 2602:304:595F:6D49:3044:222F:6518:D0E5 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Mark Rogow[reply]

Account of the Fuji Branch

I believe the section on the “Account of the Fuji Branch” is written far too specific about the Nichiren Shoshu. Not all temples belonging to the Fuji Branch are temples of the Nichiren Shoshu. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dai Gohonzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323051331/http://www.gakkaionline.net/Dai-Gohonzon/index.html to http://www.gakkaionline.net/Dai-Gohonzon/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

SGI Gohonzon.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

SGI Gohonzon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half of this material is about topics other than the subject

Half of the text in this article is about what other people think about the Dai Gohonzon, not about the Dai Gohonzon itself, which is the subject of this article. Why is the largest section in this article about the Soka Gakkai's views about this wooden image? How is that relevant to the encyclopedic entry about the subject itself? It should be trimmed dramatically so that the bulk of the content is about the subject matter only (meaning only about the wooden object of Dai Gohonzon), not about people's opinions about it. 76.79.221.123 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and since no one had done anything about this, I've removed this material. It is very strange and inappropriate that the majority of this article isn't about the plank mandala called "Dai-Gohonzon" but instead about some people's opinions about it. Also it is very clear that editors who are close to the subject, including an editor with the name of a Nichiren Shoshu temple, Myoshinji, have been responsible for much of the biased editing in this article that have lowered it away from encyclopedic standards. Orange Miike (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]