Talk:Nichiren/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Nichiren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Interschool Legitimacy Disputes (1)

Nikkō as Nichiren's successor

In light of the comment added by User:12.215.222.123 (contribs) on 19 Jun 2005, I have removed the reference to Nikkō's claimed position as chief priest of Mt Minobu and, since 12.215.222.123's comments are more about Nikkō than Nichiren, will attempt to incorporate them into the article on Nikkō. I feel that some of the comments, however, require clarification: [Jim_Lockhart]

(Article): "Most independent sources disagree that Nikkō was named Chief Priest at Kuonji. Authenticated documents indicate that Nichiren wanted his 6 main successors to share this role, as a rotation. Nikkō became acting Chief Priest at Kunoji in 1285, only after the rotation system broke down. He was in residence at Minobu from late 1285 to late 1288."

Who are "most" independent authorities? I've seen how some scholars of Nichiren work when "authenticating" documents, and their methods surely would not hold water elsewhere.
The Nikko-Fuji lineages all make the claim that Nikko left Minobu partly because the rotation scheme (for looking after Nichiren's tomb) broke down (none of the other five showed up for their turns), because at least three of the other five claimed themselves to be Tendai-school priests, and because Mimbu Niko was commiting and encouraging others to commit "heresy". Do the scholars you refer to refute this, too? (I don't know, I'm asking.)

(Article): "The Ikegami Transfer Document, allegedly naming Nikkō at Kuonji, was likely fabricated in the 15th century, to support the claim of an inheritance, by one or the other of the feuding factions, that emerged from the Nikkō-Fuji lineage. But that is another story."

What are the grounds (other than, "we don't like what this document says, so it can't be real"—the usual kind of rationale coming from the parties to these differences, including "scholars" from Rissho Daigaku) for claiming that the Ikegami Transfer Document was fabricated in the 15th century?
What about the other transfer document? ("It's another story"; sounds juicy, so fill me in....) :)

robin writes: There is no doubt that Nissho and Nichiro cited their legal status, as Tendai Priests, to prevent Hae-no-Saemon-no-jo-Yoritsuna from talking illegal actions against them and their Sanghas. Nissho, acting as the de facto senior disciple, had submitted a revised Rissho Ankoku Ron, resulting in retaliation. Nikko was supportive at first, but complained about this situation many years later.

On Nikko and Niko's dispute, I refer you to:

Reply to Lord Hara {Hakiri} by Nikko Shonin

Hara Dono Gohenji {Excerpts}: http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/Hara%20Dono%20Gohenji%20excerpts.rtf

robin writes: The Ikegami Transfer Document aka The Document for Entrusting Minobu-san aka Minobu-san Fuzoku Sho aka Ikegami-sojo-sho. In this document, the Daishonin allegedly named Nikko as his successor and chief priest of Minobu-san Kuon-ji temple."

robin writes: The Hakasho Mamorubeki Bancho no Koto, The Shift for Protecting His Mausoleum, recorded by Nikko, states: "No rank [at Minobu]is observed."

This is also stipulated in the Shuso Gosenge Kiroku. According to Nichiren Shu: http://www.genshu.gr.jp/DPJ/paper/1997/97102002.htm

Translation: "In Heisei 4 [1992], November, the Gosenge Kiroku (in the archives of Nishiyama Hommonji) that was written by Nikko, was designated an important national property, and its [contents] made open to the public. Its contents are indeed valuable information with regards to the funeral arrangements of that time, especially the matter concerning rotation duty.It is written in Koan 5 [1282] Oct 16."

robin writes: "The Minobu Transfer Document", aka Minobu Sojo aka Nichiren Ichigo Guho Fuzoku Sho. In this document, the Daishonin allegedly transferred the entirety of his teachings to Nikko and entrusted him with leadership in propagating them.

An early reference to the Minobu Transfer Document is at Nishiyama Honmonji. This was the lineage that went from Nikko to Nichidai (1294-1394). The Document was likely fabricated to support the claim of an inheritance, by Nishiyama Fujisan Honmonji, which was one of the feuding factions that emerged from the Nikko-Fuji lineage. I do not have details. This is likely why the document stipulates Fujisan Honmonji as The Honmon-no-Kaidan.

There are no originals of the Minobu Sojo; SGI presently claims that these were were lost, during a military conflict, in 1581. According to SGI, the oldest known extant copies were recorded by Nisshin (1508-1576). of Yobo-ji temple, Kyoto. The earliest specific reference is in the Hyaku-gojikka-jo, written by Nikkyo (1428-1489?), at Taisekiji Temple in 1480. It appears that the content varied among the versions known to have existed; and each supported some unique claim made by the Fuji lineage temple where it surfaced. http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/The%20Minobu%20Transfer%20Document.rtf

Shuso Gosenge Kiroku, Record of the Passing of the Founder, was recorded by Nikko, and dated October 16 1282. The 'Kiroku' documents the events surrounding Nichiren’s final days. It includes a document known as the "Rokuroso", or, in English, "The Six Senior Disciples." On October 8, 1282,On October 8, 1282, appointed Six disciples to serve as his primary successors.

They were ranked according to tradition, by seniority; the order of when they became followers of Nichiren. In other words, Nissho was named the overall successor. Moreover, subsequent events, as recorded in the Kiroku, indicate that Nissho assumed that role.

Fuji Isseki Monto Zonchi-no-koto, The Guidelines for Believers of the Fuji School, states: "The Master [i.e. Nichiren] who preceded me had not decided on any country or any particular place. It is customary, at least in Buddhism, to choose the most scenic spot and build a temple there. Then, Mt. Fuji in Sugaru (Shizuoka Prefecture) is the supreme mountain in Japan. We should build our temple there.”

This 'Guidelines' document, cited above, directly contradicts what is written in the Minobu Transfer Document, here: "When the sovereign accepts faith in this Law, the Kaidan of Honmon-ji Temple must be established at Mount Fuji."

Again, fill us in. Why could the document not have existed in Nikko's lifetime? Nichiren himself in many of his writings seemed to be quite fascinated (obsessed?) with the notion of legitimacy in the form of teacher-disciple lineage; given that context, the Nikko-Fuji branches' obsession with it do not seem all that out of character. [Jim_Lockhart]

robin writes: I see very little evidence in the translated Gosho that Nichiren was at all "fascinated (obsessed?) with the notion of legitimacy in the form of teacher-disciple lineage."

He was quite critical of Saicho's {Dengyo Daishi's} successors at Enryakuji. His critiques of Jikaki Daishi {Ennin} and others are nuanced, so sexy sound bite quotes are hard to find:

"In reality, the sutras of Shingon belong to the provisional teachings previous to the Lotus Sutra and are inferior even to the Kegon or the Hannya sutras. Yet Jikaku and Kobo were confused on this point and held that the Shingon sutras were equal or even superior to the Lotus Sutra."

He also dismissed Nonin's Daruma Zen notion of a kechimayaku outside of the Sutras:

"In the time of the Retired Emperor Gotoba, during the Kennin era (1201-1204), there were two arrogant men, Honen and Dainichi [Nonin]."

"During the Kennin era (1201-1204), two men came to prominence, Honen and Dainichi [Nonin], who spread the teachings of the Nembutsu and Zen schools, respectively. "

"Dainichi [Nonin], for his part claimed that the true teachings of Buddhism had been transmitted apart from the sutras."

Of himself, he wrote:

"I, Nichiren, am not the founder of any sect, nor am I a latter-day follower of any older sect. I am a priest without precepts, neither keeping the precepts nor breaking them. I am an ordinary creature like an ox or a sheep, divorced from both the possession of wisdom and the absence of it." -- from Letter to Myomitsu Shonin written the third month of 1276

Of his own master, he wrote:

"To repay the debt that I owe to my former teacher Dozen-bo, I desired to spread the teachings of the Buddha on Mount Kiyosumi and lead my teacher to enlightenment. But he is a rather ignorant man, and in addition he is a believer in the Nembutsu, so I did not see how he could escape the three evil paths. Moreover, he is not the kind of person who would listen to my words of instruction."

"When I considered that my teacher Dozen-bo might meet a similar fate, I was filled with pity for him and therefore made up my mind to speak to him in very strong terms."

"I explained all this in detail to Dozen-bo at the time of our meeting, though it did not appear that he completely understood."

"Dozen-bo was not an entirely helpless man, and yet, though I was exiled all the way to the province of Sado, he never once tried to visit me. This is hardly the behavior of one who believes in the Lotus Sutra."

The content and context, of subsequent events and documents, clearly prove that the Ikegami Transfer Document was not created on October 13 1282. It could not have existed at all in Nikkō's lifetime.

Nikkō wrote, or had written, many letters & documents about the situation at Minobu. He addresses many problems and disputes. Right up to his departure, in late 1288, or early 1289, he consistently holds that Nichiren's Will should be excecuted exactly as recorded. Once he was completely over ruled by the others, he left, rather than compromise any further. But not once did he claim to be the Chief Priest of Minobu. Nor did any of his successors make that claim, not for 200 years.

Jim replies: This is my understanding, too; obviously informed quite a bit by the stance of the Nikko-Fuji schools. But how does Nikko's not himself making the claim become tantamount to him not believing himself to be the chief priest of Minobu or the legitimate successor to Nichiren? I would think that this would be more obvious in the behavior of his followers and how the saw him rather than what he wrote himself.

robin writes: I find it absurd that he would not "wave the papers", had they existed. If someone tried to take my home, I think I might mention that I have my deed, to prove ownership.

http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/000529.html

http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/

Will have a look, but a cursory one doesn't show much to make me think this blog is credible.

robin writes: There is a good faith effort to be accurate and impartial. Good sources in English are rare. It is all in progress, and updated as new information is available.

A good-faith response would be appreciated. Jim_Lockhart 06:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about any typos.

Interschool Legitimacy Disputes (2)

Addition of section "No known documentary evidence by Nichiren that he inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon"

The addition of this section is a good way to deal with this issue (different interpretations of the Dai-Gohonzon) because it lets the article present both views. Good move...

But the section needs more work.

First, I think you should remove the loaded language—stuff like "...Nichiren never once refers..." and "Such a contention defies reason in light of the fact...", etc.) As it stands, this section reads more like you are arguing a point to which you are emotionally commited than presenting an alternative perspective for an encyclopedic article.

Second, you need to tighten the prose a bit, as well as say who it is who has come to the conclusions you allude to (i.e., that there is no evidence—remember, NS and others claim that there is evidence, and how to interpret the passage in "On Persecutions Befalling the Sage" (聖人御難事) referring to Nichiren's fulfillment of his mission is only one of them). Also, remember that you claim above that most authorities on this matter think in a certain way, but you fail to name them.

Finally, I think it would be a good idea if you registered as a contributor, and read and observed the conventions for making contributions.

Also, a point of contention:

"Nichiren Shoshu tradition holds that the execution of three followers whose heroic loyalty and devotion to faith apparently did not even warrant the briefest mention..."

The Nichiren Shoshu tradition holds no such thing. Be more careful in your choice of words: that "the execution of three followers...apparently did not even warrant the briefest mention" is someone else's conclusion, not Nichiren Shoshu's. If "apparently" is supposed to modify "holds", then it would be better if you reworded this "apparrently holds" to make it more obvious that you are (re)stating an opinion, not a fact. But inasmuch as it is an opinion (that reads like an accussation), it might not belong in Wikipedia.

Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I originated this section. I am learning how Wikipedia works. I've taken your suggestions and amended the text accordingly. Thanks. --Faith Likewater 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Today there are people who have faith...and others that tend to discard [it]...." I look forward to your commentary - R--70.21.220.149 04:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should take your contemptuous remarks elsewhere, especially when you don't even show the courtesy of identifying yourself. Jim_Lockhart 04:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, it wasn't meant in a negative way at all! I was just referencing a line from the Gosho. Faith's name reminded me of it, and made me smile, and wonder what more s/he will have to say. I was actually trying to express my joy and appreciation for him/her. It also reminded me to have more faith myself, and to always "trust in the strategy of the lotus sutra" which I tend to forget. I guess I was too cryptic. Anyway, this is Ruby. (I thought you knew me by now.) - R --141.153.236.128 03:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ruby and Jim. Don't know if I have much more to say on this topic. Or if I will contribute more to Wikipedia in general. But I might. I wrote this article because I discovered in Nichiren's writings some information that I thought was important. Thanks again. --Faith Likewater 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you will. I would like to hear more about what you thought was important. And you might also be interested in the discussions on Daisaku Ikeda and SGI as well. Peace. - Ruby--151.198.23.150 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The arguments put forth by Nittatsu and Toda for the authenticity of the DaiGohonzon are very weak. Although hardly a learned man, I would like to take the opportunity to scrutinize their refutation of Bentetsu Yasui’s book, The Wooden Gohonzon is a Fabrication.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 1: Mandalas written on boards of this type are typical of the Hokke fraternities and Hokke Halls of the Muromachi Period (post 1333).

Rebuttal: In _What Fuji School Believers Should Know_ (Fuji isseki monto zonchi no koto), Nikko Shonin writes: “I hear from various people that some disciples of Nichiren Shonin slight his Gohonzons by carving some of them into wooden ones and confer them upon those with no faith. They are Niko, Nitcho, Nisshun and other’s.”

Bentetsu Yasui, the author of The Wooden Gohonzon Is a Fabrication (Ita Honzon Gisaku Ron), who claims the Dai-Gohonzon is counterfeit, uses the above statement of Nikko’s to point out that the second high priest was strict about creating a wooden Gohonzon.

However, in the above quotation, we find that Nikko Shonin was strict about conferring the Gohonzon upon non-believers and also that the Daishonin’s immediate disciples such as Niko, Nitcho, Nisshun and others employed the method of engraving the Daishonin’s original Gohonzons onto wood. This fact indicates that wooden Gohonzons were common during the time of Nikko Shonin long before the Muromachi period, which invalidates the point that the wooden Gohonzon couldn’t have existed before the Muromachi period.

Kempon Hokke:

The view put forth by Bentetsu is an “and/or” proposition: Both converting Gohonzon to wooden objects and/or bestowing Gohonzon to believers who lack sufficient faith, are to be frowned upon. There is absolutely no support that this statement of Nikko confirms that converting scroll Gohonzons to wooden ones was a common practice during this time period.

Where are the many other wooden Gohonzons from this time period? Nittatsu has utilized the word “fact” above where no fact exists. Taisekaji is famous for stating “fact” when no fact exists. It is more likely that Niko, Nitchu, and Nisshun began this erroneous practice. Good thing for Nichiren Shoshu that you can not accurately scrutinize the writing on a wooden Gohonzon or everyone would know that no wooden Gohonzon was inscribed by Nikko.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 2: Nikko never mentions this so-called Supreme Mandala.

Rebuttal: In his _Transfer Document to Nichimoku_ (Nikko ato jojo no koto), the original of which exists at Taiseki-ji, Nikko Shonin states: “I transfer to Nichimoku the great Gohonzon of the second year of Koan that was entrusted upon myself, Nikko. It should be enshrined at the Honmon-ji temple. “The great Gohonzon of the second year of Koan that was entrusted upon myself, Nikko” obviously signifies the “Wooden Gohonzon Inscribed on October 12, 1279, for All Humanity (Dai-Gohonzon)”. The “Honmon-ji temple” in this quote means a building where this particular Gohonzon should be enshrined at the time of kosen-rufu.

Kempon Hokke::

This document, contrary to Taisekaji’s assertation of its originality is not in Nikko’s hand. If there existed something in Nikko’s hand that mentions the DaiGohonzon the Nichiren Shoshu would have made it widely available. The FACT IS, they have rarely let anything purportedly written by Nikko, Nichimoku, Nichido or others (up to Nichiu) that supposedly supports the existence of the DaiGohonzon, to be seen by anyone and those rare times they have, the writings were proven to be copies or forgeries.

Since it is a Taisekaji document and not in Nikko’s hand, it can in no way be cited as an independent source of verification. None of the other Nikko schools believe it is authentic, not one. Nikko has written hundreds of documents, preserved and in his hand. Where are any other citations, to this, “the prime point of the Daishonin’s advent”. Certainly, no DaiGohonzon is mentioned in the Daishonin’s writings nor is it mentioned by Niko, Nitcho, Nishun, Nissho’s or by anybody else.

Nikko never mentions this so-called “dai gohonzon” in any of his authenticated writings. The first mention of the details about the so-called “dai gohonzon” was recorded in the “Kechu Sho” which dates from 1662. Even there, the reference has been tampered with. There are no reliable historical documents that mention the so-called “dai gohonzon”. Nichiren never mentions it, Nikko never mentions it. The first word of it is in 1488, when Nichi-u announces it to the world. This “ita mandara” was attacked by Nichijo, head priest of Kitayama Hommonji, a contemporary of Nichi-u. Nichijo reports that Nichi-u had become a leper, a severe retribution for “having gone against the fundamental intention of the founder of the temple, and the carving the ita mandara, which had never been seen or heard of; he also produced forged books adorned with his own doctrines” (from the “Taisekiji Kyowaku Kempon Sho” or “The Insane Revelation of the Original Buddha at Taisekiji”, written by Nichijo.) Note that Nikko spent the last 36 years of his life at this Kitayamam Hommonji and his grave (which faces Minobusan, not Taisekiji) is there. This Hommonji was probably the best candidate for the “Hommonji” that is mentioned in the forged “transfer document” cited above by Nittatsu.

The name, “Taisekiji” cannot be mistaken for “Hommonji”. Nikko left four authentic mandalas by Nichiren at Kitayama Hommonji. He added, in his own handwriting, the following inscriptions , “Hanging it up in the Hommonji, one should make it the esteemed jewel of the Latter Age”. Each of these four mandalas has such an inscription from Nikko. These mandalas ended up at several other Nikko temples, but the reference to “Hommonji” at Kitayama is irrefutable. Of the eight Nikko temples, four received authentic Nichiren Gohonzons. Taisekiji did not receive such a prize from Nikko at all. Nikko never mentions a supreme board mandala. If he left this supreme treasure at Taisekiji, then he NEVER again returned to Taisekiji to see it, nor did he orient his grave toward it. His instructions regarding his grave, in his own handwriting, is that it face Minobusan. This would be an unthinkable breech of etiquette if a “Supreme- gohonzon” was left at Taisekiji. Nikko left Taisekiji after only 18 months there, and he spent the rest of life at Kitayama Hommonji, never returning to Taisekiji again.”

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 3: The so-called “Ita Mandara” is allegedly inscribed by Nippo. But he never worked on Minobusan (Mt. Minobu). He only carved a posthumous statue of Nichiren. It is inscribed in camphor wood, which would not have been readily available in the climate of Minobusan.

Rebuttal: A detailed record of how Nichiren Daishonin lived on Mt. Minobu does not exist. We can only know about it through whatever is mentioned in the Gosho and Nikko Shonin’s writings. It is commonly acknowledged that Nippo carved a posthumous statue of Nichiren Daishonin. Nikko Shonin chose to leave Mt. Minobu due to his confrontation with Lord Hakiri, which was caused by the lord’s four major slanderous acts. The most significant issue must have been which object of worship should be enshrined at the main hall in the temple on Minobu. Lord Hakiri, while attached to the statue of Shakyamuni, did not regard the Wooden Gohonzon as the true object of worship. He attempted to build a new statute of Shakyamuni and enshrine it as the key object of worship in the main hall. From this we can infer that the Wooden Gohonzon had been enshrined there and also that Lord Hakiri wanted to replace it with a statue of Shakyamuni. After Nikko Shonin sadly left Mt. Minobu with his disciple, Hyakkan-bo, carrying the Wooden Gohonzon on his back, Shakyamuni’s statue was enshrined in the main hall at the Minobu temple. Former High Priest Nittatsu states in his lecture on “Letter to Jakunichi,” which he presented at Hokei-ji temple on September 16, 1972:

“Some say that the camphor wood did not grow in Minobu alleging that the weather in Minobu is too cold for this wood to correct. They claim that the camphor corrects only in warm areas such as Fuji or Suruga. It is not true, however. There is a temple of the Minobu sect named Ho’on-ji and situated on the road that is close to Mt. Minobu. And even today, a huge camphor tree, which is about 1200 or 1300 years old, is correcting in its correct. From this we can safely infer that there could have been a similar 600- or 700-year-old camphor tree on Mt. Minobu during the time of Nichiren Daishonin.” (Complete Works of Nittatsu Shonin, Volume 3, No. 2, p. 475)

A Nichiren Shoshu member added (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY):

In the Jogyo Shoden-sho, written by Nichiren in 1282, Nichiren describes the three statues, and the one plank mandala called the Kaidan-in Honzon (Honmon Kaidan DaiGohonzon) that Nippo engraved from a log he found in a river. This Gohonzon was based on the Kaidan-in Honzon that Nichiren inscribed. The Kaidan-in Honzon is referred to in NichirenShoshu as the DaiGohonzon.

The Biography of Nippo states:

“It says in the Jogyo Shoden-sho (written in 1282) ‘Nippo wanted to carve a statue of Nichiren. He prayed to Shichimen Daimyojin. Was it a response (kannou) to his prayers? He found a log floating in the river. He used it to engrave the Kaidan-in Honzon. Next, he made statues of Nichiren. Altogether, three statues. One of the statues is just 3 su-n (9 centimeters) tall.’ The Daishou (Buddha, ie., Nichiren) inscribed the Kaidan-in Honzon (DaiGohonzon) and Nippo engraved it. This is the present plank Honzon. That is, it is the Gohonzon that was in the Grand Hall at Minobu. Because of Nippo’s long and masterful expertise as an artisan, he made one statue of the Daishou 3 su-n (9 cm.) tall….The plank Honzon and statues are now at Fuji…. When Nikko left Minobu, Nippo left with him.” Nippo Den/Biography of Nippo, Fuji Seiten, pgs. 731-732

Kempon Hokke:

Kempon Hokke: Nittatsu writes, referring to Nikko's dispute with Niko and Lord Hakiri, "The most significant issue must have been which object of worship should be enshrined at the main hall in the temple on Minobu." This is a fact and has been acknowledged by both parties [Nikko and Niko]. However, neither mentions the so-called DaiGohonzon as one of the objects in question. "Must have been" is not good enough while deprecating all Gohonzons in favor of the inauthentic plank Gohonzon [Ita Mandara]. Nikko in his authenticated work, Hara Dono Go Henji, only mentions Lord Hakiri's "slander" of commissioning a statue of Shakyamuni Buddha as the object of worship and Niko's "slander" for allowing it to be enshrined [with a copy of the Lotus Sutra placed before it, a common practice of Nichiren himself]. He never mentions the so-called DaiGohonzon.

Rev. Yasahara, a Nichiren priest in Japan added:

Question: John Ayres, a Taisekiji Believer quotes from the “Jogyo Shoden-sho” using it as a tool to support their case that the DaiGohzonon is authentic. We in America have no access to such a document.

Answer by Rev. Yasuhara: John Ayres mentions the “Jogyo Shoden-sho’. I think it is also called Matsunodono Gosho”. This Gosho is also a down-right forgery. Indeed this Gosho is included in the Fuji Seiten but they themselves state in the Fuji Seiten that this Gosho should not be trusted because it is a forgery for it differs from the historical fact.

One reason they themselves have had to admit that it is a forgery is because it says ‘Nippo wanted to carve a statue of Nichiren. He Prayed to Shichimen Daimyojiu. Was it a response to his prayers? He found a log floating in the river…. If they insist that it is true, they must admit that he was allowed to pray to Shichimen Daimyojin (a goddess dragon with seven faces) which is not only a a heresy but actually, the faith in Shichimen Daimyojin arose among the people during the ages considerably after the extinction of Nichiren Daishonin.

And another reason is that this Gosho praises Nippo excessively:

“To have faith in only Nippo means to have faith in Nichiren”.

If they admit this, they have to rank Nippo above Nikko, that is inconvenient for them. The course of events was that they forged this Gosho in order to demonstrate that Ita-Mandara was not forged by Nichi-u but was carved by Nippo, in opposition to the attack (Taisekiji-Ouwaka-Kempon-Show, etc.) by Nichi-jo. head priest of Kitayama Hommonji. However, they were so attached to making a lie about Nippo at that time that they unknowingly forged a Gosho which embarrassed themselves later.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 4: Even Hori Nichiko, the most learned Taisekiji priest of this century with access to all the resources of Taisekiji, could not come up with any historical source for “Yashiro Kunishige,” the recipient of the Ita Mandara. He writes in his Selected Works of the Fuji School (Fuji shugaku yoshu): “I do not know the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishige.”

Rebuttal: In his “Refuting ‘The Wooden Gohonzon Is a Fabrication,’” the former high priest, Nittatsu, states: “As long as it is a historical fact that Nichiren Daishonin inscribed this Gohonzon in October 1279, in conjunction with the Atsuhara Incident, there is no doubt that the Daishonin has Atsuhara martyrs in mind as the recipients of this Gohonzon. If we seek to find the name of Yashiro among the Atsuhara farmers in historical records, we can come across several Yashiros among the believers of the Daishonin’s time. And Jinshiro and his younger brother Yagoro played a major role in the Atsuhara Incident. In this regard, we can assert that Jinshiro was exactly the very person Nichiren Daishonin meant by Yashiro.” (p. 19) According to Nittatsu, the character jin can be construed to have been used as an honorific expression on behalf of the character ya.

Kempon Hokke:

Nittatsu begins by postulating as fact that which has been proven to be false. Then, he states, “the character jin could have been construed to have been used as an honorific expression on behalf of the character ya.” Construed by whom?

The most learned Taisekaji High Priest of the 20th Century stated: “I do not know the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishage.” Obviously Hori Nichiko didn’t construe that. Why should he have? Never before and never after had Nichiren used the honorific title “jin.” On the other hand, he used other honorific titles with regularity.

Toda:

“Some slanderous people say: ‘The recipient of the Dai-Gohonzon is Yashiro Kunishige. But such a person did not exist among the Hokke fraternities.’ Some regard him as one of the three Atsuhara martyrs, while others assert that he is a son of Lord Nanjo. However, many agree that it is a fictitious name, which makes sense to me.

“The question is why Nichiren Daishonin chose Yashiro Kunishige as the recipient of the Dai-Gohonzon. You cannot uderstand this question unless you are deeply versed in Buddhism. It does not make sense to those who have not mastered Buddhist views. However, once you fully understand the essence of Buddhism, this riddle becomes an easy question.

“Some wonder: ‘Since the Daishonin entrusted the Dai-Gohonzon upon Nikko Shonin, why didn’t he choose Nikko Shonin as its recipient?’ It is because if Nichiren Daishonin had chosen Nikko Shonin, the Dai-Gohonzon could not be said to have been inscribed for all humanity. The ‘Gohonzon for All Humanity’ is something that should be conferred upon the person who propagates Nam-myoho-renge-kyo throughout the world and builds a high sanctuary in the future by spreading it first in Japan….

Kempon Hokke:

This makes absolutely no sense. Think about it, the Gohonzon for the Transmission of the Law in 1281 was conferred to Nissho but the Gohonzon For All Humanity was not conferred to Nikko? The statement, “The Gohonzon for All Humanity “, referring to the DaiGohonzon, is a ridiculous statement that demonstrates either Toda’s ignorance or deisengenuousness since 93 of the extant 128 Gohonzons have similar inscriptions.

Then, going on to say it was conferred on Kunishige, “the person who propagates Namu Myoho renge kyo throughout the world” is just more of the same wild conjecture as postulated by Nittatsu only Toda didn’t even have the honesty to say “could have been construed”. Furthermore, the histories of Nichiren’s great lay disciples have been handed down to posterity in the Gosho. Not Yashiro’s, however. The person who “propagates Namu Myoho renge kyo to the world.” and not a mention of his great deeds. That is impossible for so considerate a Master as Nichiren.

Nittatsu/Toda

Toda:

“In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni talks to Shariputra who is already deceased. He could do so because he was talking to Shariputra within his own life….

Kempon Hokke:

Shariputra was known to have existed during the last years of the Buddha’s lifetime. According to the Pali Canon, he died a few months before the Buddha. The analogy is baseless.

Toda:

“In a like manner, Yashiro Kunishige represents all those who propagate the Lotus Sutra. In other words, he is Yashiro Kunishige within the life of Nichiren Daishonin. Yashiro Kunishige does not have to denote a historical figure. There is no problem at all even if he did not exist historically.

Kempon Hokke:

More conjecture, Why is Toda trying so hard to sell this point to his disciples when Hori Nichiko merely stated: “I do not know the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishige.” Why didn’t Hori conjecture or make up stories? Why did Toda feel the need to do so? One reason is that Toda never had the humility to say, I don’t know about anything. The other reason is that Bentetsu’s book had not yet been published.

Toda:

“It is a scientific approach to examine the matter historically and conclude that things should be this way or that. From a Buddhist perspective, however, since Nichiren Daishonin dedicated the Dai-Gohonzon to Yashiro Kunishige within his own life, Yashiro signifies an ideal individual, an ideal votary of the Lotus Sutra.

Kempon Hokke:

Nichiren said it was Shakyamuni who entered his head, not Yashiro Kunishage. By Toda’s insipid reasoning, Nichiren should have dedicated the DaiGohonzon to Shakyamuni. More conjecture, more construing.

Toda:

In this regard, whether he actually existed in the past or not does not matter (Complete Works of Josei Toda, Volume 2, pp. 15-19).

Kempon Hokke:

For something that does not matter, Toda sure has done a lot of conjecturing and construing. A simple, “I do not know the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishige.”, would have sufficed.

The Nichiren Shoshu’s and SGI’s lies beget lies and invariably they are revealed as we have done above with rebuttals to rebuttals of allegations # 1, # 2, #3 and # 4 Why do you have lies and forgeries in your corpus [canon]?. It is easy to disprove every rebuttal to every allegation (except the fifth and the last one). However, since it will be proven that at least 9 of 10 of the rebuttals of allegations are false, it would be honorable to abandon the Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI which are the two most distorted renditions off the Daishonin’s teachings.

Toda/Nittatsu:

Allegation 5: The handwriting of the “Ita Mandara” is from the third year of Koan (1280), not the second year of Koan, which is the formal date on this mandara (1279). It is quite probable that the forgery was taken from a genuine mandara now at Myokaiji in Numazu near Fuji (Yamanaka, V.1, p. 302, No. 36). The size of the daimoku is consistent with the twelve gohonzons that were made by Nichiren in 1280. The twelve that he made in 1279 are only 5/8th the size of the ones of 1280. Also, the “secret” marks denote April of 1280. Nichiren’s gohonzons are all dated in this “secret code” of Nichiren’s, perhaps because Nichiren wanted to guard against forgery.

Rebuttal: Since the Dai-Gohonzon is the ultimate Gohonzon that the Daishonin inscribed for all humanity, it can be naturally different in the choice of the size of the characters of daimoku from other Gohonzons inscribed in 1279 for individual believers.

Actually, Myokaiji’s mandara is a copy of the Gohonzon Nichiren Daishonin inscribed to his disciple Nikke. Everything written on these two Gohonzons is exactly the same. The only difference between them lies in the signature (kao) of the Daishonin. Myokaiji’s mandara shows inconsistency in the stroke of the brush.

The idea of the Daishonin having created the “secret code” in the inscription of the Gohonzon against forgery is indeed far-fetched. It is true that the appearance of the Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren Daishonin went through a gradual evolution. Almost all of the Gohonzons Nichiren Daishonin inscribed were for individual believers who lived apart from one another. It is hard to justify that Nichiren Daishonin had to systematize such individual Gohonzons by creating the”secret code” against forgery.

Kempon Hokke:

Not knowing anything about secret marks indicating dates, I will defer on this point. But the rebuttal is weak just the same. The clincher is that “Myokaiji’s mandara shows inconsistency in the stroke of the brush when talking about the (kao) of the Daishonin.” He is either hedging that the Myokaiji Gohonzon is a forgery [and therefore using a forgery to bolster the argument that the DaiGohonzon is authentic] or he is saying that the only difference is the brushstrokes of the kao. That would mean, the same recipient, the same side inscriptions and everything but only the DaiGohonzon is the one and only Gohonzon for all mankind. Their inconsistencies are beyond belief. They are grasping at straws.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 6: It is unlikely that Nichiren would have allowed such an obscure individual as this mysterious Yashiro to be the sponsor of the Kaidan mandala. By analogy with the past, it would have been a ruler of the country. It certainly was not one of the Atsuhara martyrs, for common farmers did not have last names in those days.

Rebuttal: See the rebuttal of allegation # 4.

Kempon Hokke:

See , our rebuttal to their rebuttal of allegation #4.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 7: The testimony of Nikko not only fails to give any backing to this so-called “Ita Mandara,” but on several genuine mandalas Nikko writes his supreme accolade. These are not the original temples of these mandalas, so no one is claiming that possession of the mandaras gives them any status, but it proves that there was more than one Hommonji, according to Nikko, and no single mandala was designated as the only mandala.

Rebuttal: In his “Transfer Document to Nichimoku (Nikko ato jojo no koto),” whose original exists at Taiseki-ji, Nikko Shonin states: “I transfer to Nichimoku the great Gohonzon of the second year of Koan that was entrusted upon myself, Nikko. It should be enshrined at the Honmon-ji temple.”

Nikko Shonin uses the expression “It should be enshrined at the Honmon-ji temple” to show to the original Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin the same respect he extended to the Dai-Gohonzon. Still, this does not negate the uniqueness of the Wooden Gohonzon of October 12, 1279, which was inscribed for a specific purpose, that is, the happiness of all humanity.

Kempon Hokke:

Just as my rebuttal to allegation # 2, this document, contrary to Taisekaji’s assertation of its originality, is not in Nikko’s hand. “If there existed something in Nikko’s hand that mentions the DaiGohonzon the Nichiren Shoshu would have made it widely available. The FACT IS, they have rarely let anything purportedly written by Nikko, Nichimoku or Nichido or others(up to Nichiu), supporting the existence of the DaiGohonzon, to be seen by anyone and those rare times they have, the writings were proven to be copies or forgeries.

Since it is a Taisekaji document and not in Nikko’s hand, it can in no way be cited as an independent source of verification. None of the other Nikko schools believe it is authentic, not one. Nikko has written hundreds of documents, preserved and in his hand. Where are any other citations, to this, “the prime point of the Daishonin’s advent”. Certainly, no DaiGohonzon is mentioned in the Daishonin’s writings nor is it mentioned by Niko, Nitcho, Nishun, Nissho’s or by anybody else.

Nikko never mentions this so-called “dai gohonzon” in any of his authenticated writings. The first mention of the details about the so-called “dai gohonzon” was recorded in the “Kechu Sho” which dates from 1662. Even there, the reference has been tampered with. There are no reliable historical documents that mention the so-called “dai gohonzon”. Nichiren never mentions it, Nikko never mentions it. The first word of it is in 1488, when Nichi-u announces it to the world. This “ita mandara” was attacked by Nichijo, head priest of Kitayama Hommonji, a contemporary of Nichi-u. Nichijo reports that Nichi-u had become a leper, a severe retribution for “having gone against the fundamental intention of the founder of the temple, and the carving the ita mandara, which had never been seen or heard of; he also produced forged books adorned with his own doctrines” (from the “Taisekiji Kyowaku Kempon Sho” or “The Insane Revelation of the Original Buddha at Taisekiji”, written by Nichijo.) Note that Nikko spent the last 36 years of his life at this Kitayamam Hommonji and his grave (which faces Minobusan, not Taisekiji) is there. This Hommonji was probably the best candidate for the “Hommonji” that is mentioned in the forged “transfer document” cited above by Nittatsu.

The name, “Taisekiji” cannot be mistaken for “Hommonji”. Nikko left four authentic mandalas by Nichiren at Kitayama Hommonji. He added, in his own handwriting, the following inscriptions “Hanging it up in the Hommonji, one should make it the esteemed jewel of the Latter Age”. Each of these four mandalas has such an inscription from Nikko. These mandalas ended up at several other Nikko temples, but the reference to “Hommonji” at Kitayama is irrefutable. Of the eight Nikko temples, four received authentic Nichiren Gohonzons. Taisekiji did not receive such a prize from Nikko at all. Nikko never mentions a supreme board mandala. If he left this supreme treasure at Taisekiji, then he NEVER again returned to Taisekiji to see it, nor did he orient his grave toward it. His instructions regarding his grave, in his own handwriting, is that it face Minobusan. This would be an unthinkable breech of etiquette if a “Supreme- gohonzon” was left at Taisekiji. Nikko left Taisekiji after only 18 months there, and he spent the rest of life at Kitayama Hommonji, never returning to Taisekiji again.”

Adding to the Honmonji bait and switch argument of Nittatsu, it is nothing more than Taisekaji’s and SGI tactic, “you say potato and I say avocado” they are the same. We see how winning is losing. In this case, Honmonji means Taisekaji.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Allegation 8: The 9th high priest, Nichiu, carved the “Ita Mandara” which had never been seen or heard of. Nichi-jo, head priest of Kitayama Hommonji, a contemporary of Nichiu, reports that, for his sin, Nichiu became a leper for having gone against the fundamental intention of the founder of the temple (Nikko).

Rebuttal: It is a fact that Nichiu had somebody carve a wooden Gohonzon based upon an original Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin. On this copied wooden Gohonzon is Nichiu’s signature. It has been housed at the Treasure House of Taiseki-ji. But the Dai-Gohonzon and this copied wooden Gohonzon are two different things. Nichiu reportedly created the above wooden Gohonzon in fear of the possible loss of the Dai-Gohonzon through civil wars that often erupted in those days.

Nichiju’s contention that Nichiu died as a leper is based upon the rumor he reportedly heard from a farmer in his neighborhood. Nichiju is known as Nichiu’s arch enemy. Since the basis of his contention is mere hearsay, it cannot be legitimately used to justify his point.

Kempon Hokke:

The first announcement of the DaiGohonzon occured more than 200 years after Nichiren Daishonin’s passing by Nichiu. Initially, it was not denounced by Minobu or the Kempon Hokke but by Nikko’s other temple, Honmonji. There is not one reference to it before then.

For two hundred long years, not one person ever mentions the “Central Object of Worship for all mankind”. Nichiren Daishonin never writes so much as a word about it, much less teaches about all it’s complicated theoretical underpinnings. No one sees it. No one argues over it. No one discusses it, let alone mentions it for two hundred years until a very tiny family temple called Taisekiji, during the tenure of High Priest Nichiu, says they have such an object. The facts are, the DaiGohonzon, its manifestation and its concepts, has absolutely nothing to do with Nichiren Daishonin.

Taisekaji says it was originally housed in a temple called Kuonji as the principle Object of Worship but, at the same time, when pressed, “why was there nothing written about it?”, they say it was a “secret”. “Secret” is the hallmark of esoteric Buddhism, something the Daishonin fought against for the better part of his life.

Since NST lied and continues to lie about the DaiGohonzon, the central core of their beliefs, then how can anyone follow such a profoundly dishonest sect (sangha)? How can anyone believe their other tenets that go against the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of Nichiren: The transmission to one sole heir [or the Living Master of the Seat of the Law."]; Nichiren as True Buddha; Shakyamuni as husk Buddha; and the Lotus Sutra having lost its power in the Latter Age? Yet, this is exactly what the SGI adopted and continues to adopt: A Living Master of the Seat of the Law (the successive presidents of the SGI); Shakyamuni as husk Buddha; Nichiren as True Buddha; and the Lotus Sutra having lost it’s power in Mappo. They continue to cling to the principles of this dishonest sect, even going so far as adopting the Gohonzon of the worst transgressor, Nichikan Shonin.

As far as Nichiu’s white leprosy, not only did Nichiju teach that this was the reason Nichiu abandoned Taisekaji but there are other accounts from Honmonji that confirm that Nichiu contracted white leprosy. It’s not like this was a big secret like the DaiGohonzon.

Nittatsu/Toda

Allegation 9: The theme of “On Persecutions Befalling the Buddha” is encouragement of the faithful in the wake of the Atsuhara Persecution. Despite the reference to the attainment for the “fundamental intention for coming forth in this world,” it does not have any connection with the so-called “Ita Mandara” which is not mentioned in this letter at all. Taisekiji has used the close date of this letter to back its claims for the date of the Ita Mandala.

Rebuttal: What enabled the Daishonin to fulfill his fundamental purpose behind his advent in this world? At the expense of their lives, the Atsuhara farmers showed actual proof of their solid faith in the Daishonin’s teaching. The establishment of their unshakable faith meant the establishment of Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism. In other words, by witnessing their true faith, the Daishonin was able to decide upon the inscription of the eternal object of worship for all humanity.

Nichiren Daishonin was paying close attention to the progress of the Atsuhara incident. While respecting the strong faith displayed by the farmers, he heard the news of their martyrdom. Sensing that the time had finally come for him to inscribe the Gohonzon for all humanity, he did so with those farmers’ lives in his heart.

Kempon Hokke:

Nichiren never mentions the DaiGohonzon period. All the ornate rhetoric and conjecture in the world doesn’t change this fact. These liars and base men won’t even give the Atsuhara Martyr’s their due. The actual proof of the people’s faith in the Daishonin’s teachings was, not begrudging their lives to see the Buddha, willing to give their lives for the sake of the Law. This was the reason for Nichiren Daishonin’s advent.

Allegation # 10 about the Camphor wood also has been argued by Robin, refuting Bentetsu’s allegation, however, it should be noted, the climate in Japan was ~ 5 degrees colder in the time of the Daishonin, making it unlikely that Camphor wood grew in the vicinity of Minobu and certainly not north of the area from which might come a floating log (the river ran north south). Even today, Camphor trees are hardly ubiquitous at that latitude and elevation, contrary to Robin’s assertions.

As far as the following assertion, we admit our error. However. it bolsters our claim that the DaiGohonzon isn’t unique.

Nittatsu/Toda:

Other Allegations 1: In none of the Daishonin’s original Gohonzon there are such descriptions as “One who makes offerings will gain good fortune surpassing the [Buddha's] ten honorable titles” and “One who slanders will have his head broken into seven pieces.”

Rebuttal: Six of the original Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin have these inscriptions. They are:

1) Gohonzon inscribed in August 1278 (housed at Kaicho-ji, Kyoto). 2) Gohonzon inscribed in August 1278 (housed at Honno-ji, Kyoto). 3) Gohonzon inscribed on November 21, 1278 (housed at Kocho-ji, Okamiya). 4) Gohonzon inscribed on February 2, 1279 (housed at Joko-in, Nakayama). 5) Gohonzon inscribed on February 2, 1279 (housed at Juryo-ji, Kuwana) 6) Gohonzon inscribed in July 1279 (housed at Kocho-ji, Okamiya)

Kempon Hokke:

We admit our error here. The assertion about the side inscription by Bentatsu was faulty. However, this just goes to show that, if anything, the DaiGohonzon was NOT unique among Nichiren Gohonzons.

We have successfully refuted Nittatsu’s and Toda’s assertions that the DaiGohonzon is the unique and supreme mandala for all mankind. -- Mark Rogow 2/4/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRogow (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Gosho and references to the Dai-Gohonzon

Hi Ruby. What I thought was important was that I could not find any references to the Dai Gohonzon in Nichiren's writings, yet this object was said by Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai to be the very foundation of his teachings. I found it strange that, since Nichiren wrote so extensively and clearly on his teachings, he would not mention this most important element of them at least once. Based on scouring Nichiren's teachings as relayed in the WND and Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, questioning national-level Buddhist study leaders and on the simple admission of WND editors that Nichiren's "sole allusion" to this object existed in a document that does not appear to me to be about the Gohonzon at all (at least not directly--one could say that ALL his teachings are about the Gohonzon, or fundamental Law), I concluded that he simply didn't inscribe it. And if that's the case, as a Nichiren Buddhist, I thought it was extremely important to clarify what the founder actually taught. My view is that in light of the fact that the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu are currently in disagreemnt about doctrinal matters, each one of us needs to be fully aware of what Nichiren actually taught--even though gaining this awareness may disrupt our sensibilities for a while since, not necessarily due to anyone's bad intentions, we may have received misinformation that has continued to be transmitted over the course of centuries.

As far as the discussions on the SGI and Daisaku Ikeda goes, I may check them out, but can't say for sure. It was the particular matter I wrote about that I really felt the need speak on. Hope you're enjoying Thanksgiving if you celebrate it. Going offline now to head over to relatives. --Faith Likewater 20:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, now, that IS interesting! That just changes everything, doesn't it? Tell me more...

I checked and it comes up in the SGI Dictionary of Terms, but you're right - it deosn't appear in any of the writings. When/where did this first appear? Do you know? Thanks for the holiday greetings - I hope you enjoyed your visit as well. - Ruby--67.97.160.165 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanksgiving was one of the best for me in a long time! Thank you.

>When/where did this first appear?.

When/where did this [mention of the Dai-Gohonzon] first appear?

Do you mean when/where did the Dai Gohonzon first appear? If not, please clarify your question. If that is what you mean, the only source I could find for when the Dai Gohonzon first appeared was Nichiren Shu. There may be others, but my research was limited to WND, Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, The Untold History of the Fuju School, SGI study leaders and the Internet. According to Nichiren Shu (an Internet source: http://la.nichirenshu.org/history/history.htm), the Dai Gohonzon appeared during the tenure of 9th High Priest Nichiu, whom the Soka Gakkai refers to as one of the "Restorers of the Fuju School". There was reportedly a long dispute over land (and other matters, maybe--need to check on that). There was back and forth over which school was the most legit--the one based on Nikko's lineage or others. And during Nichiu's tenure the Dai Gohonzon showed up presumably as a way of settling the issue in a definitive way. I've contributed an article about what coming across this information has meant personally to me under the pen name Hope Evers here:

http://www.fortunechildbooks.com/wisdom/quest.htm and expanded on the information I submitted to Wikipedia here: http://www.fortunechildbooks.com/wisdom/daigohonzon.htm

As I said, mainly I simply think it's extremely important to stick to what Nichiren really taught in all matters related to his school, but especially when it comes to the very foundation of his teachings. As I stated above, Nichiren's voluminous and detailed writings themselves provide the most compelling evidence that he did not inscribe the Dai Gohonzon, since he never mentions it even once. And when one closely examines the one writing in which he is said to have mentioned it, one finds that the letter does not seem to be about the Gohonzon at all, let alone about the most high Gohonzon.

Because I believe the spiritual realm is what moves the world (as in Buddhism is the body, life is the shadow), as a Nichiren Buddhist I think being clear about what Nichiren really taught is crucial right now given the critical global climate (political, social and geological) and the realities of the situation between Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai.

Take care. --Faith Likewater 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and you did answer my question. I totally agree with you on many points, and I'd be interested to know more about this. I'll check out your links tomorrow night. Frankly, I am of the mind that Nichiren and Shakyamuni said it all, and I do think Makiguchi, Toda and Ikeda, and some of the priesthood get it too. I think the Dai Gohonzon confuses things (this is strictly my uneducated intuitive-feeling way of seeing things, though). And frankly, while SGI leaders would probably gringe at what I am about to say, I also think that SGI will be better off once it breaks free of all that. I think the greatest lesson we got was not to let dogma and doctrine, politics and power, deter us or sway us from what is right, and that is all. We are standnig on a great precipice in which the entire discourse can be chaged, and with it, our way of life, relating, living and dying. These works can be a tremendous inspiration, guide and insight -- as lons as we avoid the age old temptation to let ego, doctrine, "authority" imaginary images of status and power corrupt us. Anyway, my 2 cents...waiting to hear more....Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

>I also think that SGI will be better off once it breaks free of all that.

Me too, Ruby. IMHO "better off" is an understatement. I think "breaking free" is at the crux of the matter in terms of our direction and potential be fully realized beings. I know this is true for me personally.

--Faith Likewater 16:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Liked your article. I am right there with you. My question to you - since this is said to have happened in the 1400s, how do you interpret the WND editors and SGIs relationship to this? I mean, do you think they have simply accepted the story because they accepted Nichiren Shoshu? Or are there leaders within SGI who are cognizant of this, and continue to support it? Or are there those (leadership, in particular) who have or are raising this question? Have you read much of Toda or Makiguchi? Or Ikeda for that matter? I wonder if they have much to say about the Dai Gohonzon...? Just off the top of my head, when you raised the point, I know I have heard and read quite a bit about the Gohonzon, but now that I think of it, I'm not so sure I've really heard much about the Dai Gohonzon from anyone, really. I can't say that I've heard much about it at all, except for when people are discussing the NSA days, and the whole destruction of that building, (senior moment! name escapes me!) etc. What do you think? - R--71.250.88.213 04:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi R. (are you Ruby?),

Faith here. Regarding your questions/comments:

I think, since the tradition regarding the Dai Gohonzon began a few hundred years before the Soka Gakkai was founded and the tradtion subsequently became imbedded in Nichiren Shoshu, that both the post-1400s NS priests and all those who evolved from them (including Mr. Makiguchi and the Soka Gakkai) were brought up on and passed along information that I now believe to be false.

My personal view, based on the sources I named previously, is that the intention behind the creation of the Dai Gohonzon was not diabolical and may well have been good. However, the result is that the Nichiren's teachings have been removed from their true meaning, which is not good.

The Dai Gohonzon still exists in the liturgy books SGI members use everyday. I don't know if it so exists in NS liturgy books--does it? Also, SGI study materials still refer to it, including the relatively new Buddhist dictionary. I believe the latest study exam material did as well (called the Buddhist Learning Review). When new members join the SGI, they inherit this information from their sponsors and study materials. Although I have noticed a great reduction in references to its importance over the past decade and an increase in references to the Gohonzon alone, the Dai Gohonzon and its accompanying mythology (inscription on Oct. 12, 1279/fulfillment of Nichiren's life purpose/inspired by the Atsuhara martyrs) still lives in the SGI.

Regarding SGI leaders: None of them has directly told me that they know for a fact that the Dai Gohonzon was not inscribed by Nichiren. However, none of them has told me that they know for a fact that it was inscribed by him, or by someone working on his behalf, either.

I think that until an official SGI statement is made regarding the Dai Gohonzon, SGI leaders who are employed by the organizatioin do not feel that they are not in a position to make statements refuting its validity. --Faith Likewater 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can answer some of the questions here: Yes, the Dai-Gohonzon is mentioned in the NS liturgy book, as it was in the old one SG/SGI used. The second prayer, specifically, is dedicated to expressing appreciation for the Dai-Gohonzon, which is also why (in NS tradition) the whole Juryohon is recited in gongyo for that prayer.

The notion that the Dai-Gohonzon was not inscribed by Nichiren Daishonin started, I believe, with Nichiju of the Kempon Hokke Sect (Myoman-ji in Kyoto), sometime in the 15th century (writing from memory here, so don't hold me to this).

First mention of the Dai-Gohonzon is hard to pin down because of all the accusations of different writings being inauthentic. In other words, it all depends on whom you [want to] believe. Nikko Shonin mentions it as the "Dai-Gohonzon of 1279 entrusted to my care" or something to that effect in his Nikko-ato Jojo no Koto of November 1332, but of course those who want to negate the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon will say that this document is a fake.

This is more than just an NS/SG/SGI thing, it's a Japanese thing. Don't get me wrong—I'm not putting the Japanese down—but in Japan, people often declare old documents authentic or inauthentic because the content agrees with their preconceptions, not because they have subjected the documents to some sort of rigorous research. If you study this stuff enough yourself, you'll hit upon this sort of thing in Japanese history, right down to things like the Imperial family. (Actually, European history isn't much different.)

I have not read enough of Makiguchi's works to know, but Toda almost always mentions the Dai-Gohonzon. He also frequently mentions maintaining respect for the priesthood and the head temple, regardless of what disagreements my arise; and he called the Soka Gakkai a "cart for gathering up deluded people and taking them to the Dai-Gohonzon." (I'll see if I can find the exact source and wording for you, but I have to dig the book out of a closet.) For these reasons alone, I'm sure you will never see Toda's complete works appear in English, unless some idependent scholor puts them out.

As for the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon, this is an argument that's been going on for at least 500 years and maybe even 700. We are not going to resolve it.

I hope I don't sound too cynical, but I advise caution with information people or organizations are supplying, regardless of their stance or "what side" they're on. I am certain that organizations are more interested in being thought right than they are in being right. The might not lie to you, but they certainly will tell you only what they want you to know or believe. In other words: We're on our own, kids; we have to make a decision ourselves and be satisfied with the consequences.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia is really not the place to be having these discussions. Best regards to all, Jersey_Jim 09:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

You Said: "Meanwhile, Wikipedia is really not the place to be having these discussions."

It seems to me that this Wikipedia discussion page about Nichiren is a highly suitable place to discuss information related to him that appears on this site. Can you elaborate on your view?

You said: "but I advise caution with information people or organizations are supplying...We're on our own, kids; we have to make a decision ourselves and be satisfied with the consequences."

As for me, I looked to Nichiren's writings to discern whether or not the Dai Gohonzon was created by him. The few other sources I named supplemented that search, but were not the main focus of it. Nichiren's writings themselves were and remain my primary source of information about his teachings. As I stated in my article, it was on those writings that I based my conclusion that he did not create the Dai Gohonzon.--Faith Likewater 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Faith. First, my elaboration. I have to admit that "these discussions" is rather ambiguous. I was not referring to discussions of the article content, but to the repetitious outpourings of personal feelings (although, I have to admit, I've been guilty of it too).

Note: When I write article, I'm referring to the whole article on Nichiren, not just those sections that I have worked on. I believe it advisable to be unambiguous in our word choices, lest we create more confusion that necessary.

As for your quest for the truth about the Dai-Gohonzon: I realize that you look to Nichiren's writings, which is fine—it's certainly not something I want to discourage you from. But you have written that you use only English sources. By definition, then, you have access to about 175 out of some 700 of Nichiren's writings; further, some of those that deal with your subject matter are not among those 175. And finally, you are missing a further piece of context within which the Dai-Gohonzon appeared: the numerous other Gohonzon that Nichiren inscribed before and after the Dai-Gohonzon's purported inscription. Each of those other Gohonzon has what is called a wakigaki, which is like a little dedication or explanation written down the left side of the Gohonzon's face, and many have further commentary written on the back; these wakigaki and commentary often describe the context of that Gohonzon's inscription. The wakigaki named the person or persons for whom the Gohonzon was inscribed; such Gohonzon are called ikki ichien (一機一縁: "one capacity, one relationship [to the Buddha]") and are considered to be for the enlightenment of the person named on the Gohonzon and his or her direct descendants.

Where the untranslated gosho are concerned, please note that I'm not saying the omissions are intentional. I'm sure they [the omissions] are (or, originally were) not [intentional]. Gosho, being well over 700 years old, are not easy to read in the original, let alone translate. This is not to mention those behind your other sources who are intent on persuading you that the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic.

My point here is that, your obvious sincerity and laudible dedication aside, the evidence available to you is insufficient for reaching such a stark conclusion about a matter so crucial to many Nichiren believers.

Back to the article. Mention of doubts cast upon the Dai-Gohonzon's authenticity are appropriate to this article, but detailed descriptions of the hows and whys, and inclusion of wording—especially emotionally loaded wording—to discredit the Dai-Gohonzon are out of place. If you feel that it is important enough a subject to be handled in Wikipedia (which it probably is), I suggest creating a separate article and placing a link to it in this one.

There is also the question of article balance in terms of how much space is dedicated to a given sub-topic. The section of this article mentioning the Dai-Gohonzon is three paragaphs long, each of them of measured length; in contrast, the section challenging its authenticity consists of over 10 paragraphs, some of them quite lengthy and detailed.

For one-on-one discussions of personal feelings, neither the article nor the talk pages are the right place, and there are plenty of forums for that elsewhere. Links to them ought to be enough for those readers who are interested in that sort of discussion.

This reply is itself now too long, so I'll stop here. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

HI Jim

>By definition, then, you have access to about 175 out of some 700 of Nichiren's writings; >further, some of those that deal with your subject matter are not among those 175.

I can find no mention of Nichiren's writings that are not translated into English in which he writes of the Dai Gohonzon--other than one of the alleged transfer documents. Since, as you say, hundreds of his writings exist still today, it seems logical to me that at least one of them would mention his most important inscription by name. Have you read a gosho that is available in Japanese-only, other than the transfer document, in which Nichiren directly mentions the Dai Gohonzon? If not, and if there is indeed a lack of such a document, I believe this ommission is extremely noteworthy.

>but detailed descriptions of the hows and whys, and inclusion of wording—especially >emotionally loaded wording—to discredit the Dai-Gohonzon are out of place.

Do you feel I have used such language in the material I contributed to the article itself (not on this talk page)? And do you feel I have used "emotionally loaded wording" on this talk page? If so, in reply to both or either questions, where have I done so? If not, to what and whom are your referring?

>This is not to mention those behind your other sources who are intent on persuading you that >the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic.

To whom are you referring?

>There is also the question of article balance in terms of how much space is dedicated to a > >given sub-topic.

Is this a Wikipedia guideline or your personal or some other editorial opinion? If it is the former, please provide me a link to it.

Take care. --Faith Likewater 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Faith. Wow, I seem to have hit a raw nerve—apologies for that. Please don't take my generalizations personally; meanwhile, let me repsond to your questions.

To my knowledge (I have not read them all either), the gosho do not mention the Dai-Gohonzon in so many words (i.e., the word Dai-Gohonzon does not appear), even in the Japanese; that is true. But they do mention it indirectly; unfortunately, since the gosho are subject to interpretation, people disagree on the indirect references (I believe you cited "On Persecutions Befalling the Sage," which is a perfect example). So whether any given gosho refers to the Dai-Gohonzon is a matter of such interpretation (and, perhaps, even one of faith).

Whether direct mention of the Dai-Gohonzon is logical because of its importance, I believe is also a matter of the logic applied: that of a 13th-century Japanese priest, or that of a 20/21st century thinker—not only do we have difference of linguistic cultures to deal with, but also those of temporal cultures. Among Japanese interpreters of Nichiren, this has been—as I wrote above—a matter of contention for at least 500 years.

Yes, I feel some of the material that you added is emotively worded. Alone its length and the volume of arguments against the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon are indicative of passion (which in itself is not bad, and also is not the object of my criticism; if anything, I admire your dedication). Since I already pointed out some of the problem spots (see the beginning of this sub-section), I don't think it would be fruitful to engage in a point-by-point crticism of your additions.

My reference to those "who are intent on persuading you that the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic" is to some of the sources, among the websites, you have cited, particuarly the pages of the Kempon Hokke Shu, though Soka Gakkai also seems to be moving in the direction of negating the authenticity (or, at least, the necessity) of the Dai-Gohonzon.

If I have confused your sources with ones cited by someone else, I apologize. I'm not criticising your intent or you personally, or even all of the content you have prsented; I am criticizing some aspects of its presentation.

On balance/section length: I thought this was a matter of common editorial sense and—in a way—fairness. Inasmuch as you present evidence and state your own conclusions, though, something could be said about Wikipedia not being a venue for presenting original research; but let's not go there <g>.

I guess your comments also mean that you're not interested in a separate article on the Dai-Gohonzon, which—as I've written before—seems to me to be a more appropriate place for detailed information of this nature.

Best regards Jersey_Jim 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

The writings of Nichiren that I've read seem very clear and direct regarding the aspects of his teachings that he deemed important. He wrote many letters covering the same topics from various angles and in ways that suited the particular recipients' levels of education, social background and understanding. I find it extremely incongruous that no such detailed correspondence of his can be cited in reference to the Dai Gohonzon.

>On balance/section length: I thought this was a matter of common editorial sense and—in a way—>fairness.

Since you have not listed a Wikipedia source stating that this is an official view, then I take it that it is your opinion. If I am wrong and this is not solely your opinion (vis a vis Wikipedia), please list the official Wikipedia link where this guideline appears. If these comments are your opinion, that's cool. In this case, my opinion is different than yours.

>My reference to those "who are intent on persuading you that the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic"

As stated, I came to the conclusion I cited primarily based on Nichiren's writings. Regarding your comment: >Wikipedia not being a venue for presenting original research<. Since, as you know, Nichiren Shu has long held that the Dai Gohonzon was not created by Nichiren, my addition to this article was based on previously-existing research in that regard. However, I do concede that additional research into Nichiren's own writings that supports the Nichiren Shu contention was conducted by me.

All the best to you.

--Faith Likewater 15:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Faith.

>> On balance/section length: I thought this was a matter of common
>> editorial sense and—in a wayfairness.

>>Since you have not listed a Wikipedia source stating that this is
>> an official view, then I take it that it is your opinion.

Apologies if my reply was ambiguous. Your take is correct: as far as I know, this is not a Wikipedia policy. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion and we'll just have to disagree here.

Do you object to a separate article on the Dai-Gohonzon that includes your material, with links to it from other articles that mention the Dai-Gohonzon? Or do you prefer that this material stay in this article? I ask because the focus of this article is Nichiren's life, so the Dai-Gohonzon is incidental topic, and not the main topic, of this article.

On the matter of the Dai-gohonzon's authenticity and whether it is mentioned in the Gosho, I guess we'll also have to agree to disagree. For instance, I believe the passage in "On the Persecutions Befalling the Sage" in which Nichiren says, "The Buddha fulfilled the purpose of his advent in a little over forty years … For me, it took twenty-seven years," is a reference to the Dai-Gohonzon. Others disagree. I'm sure you realize also that any Gosho directly touching on the Dai-Gohonzon as an extant object, directly or indirectly, would have to been ones written between 1279 and 1281, which doesn't leave very many.

In relation to another subject—emotive wording and such—I found a Wikipedia guidline page that might be of reference to you (actually, to us all...) at Wikipedia:Words to avoid.

Btw, are you the same person quoted as Robin in previous discussions? I ask because I may have confused some of that person's comments and sources with yours. If you're not Robin, then I need to apologize for that.

Best regards, Jersey_Jim 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Thanks for offering clarification and checking about who is who. I'm not Robin. I have no objection to a separate Dai Gohonzon article. I think that since the Dai Gohonzon is mentioned in the Nichiren article, the fact that there is an alternative view about it is relevant. A briefer version of the information that appears in the section marked "Completion of mission in this world", including some portion of the note I inserted at the top of it, would suffice IMO. From there a link could go to a full article on the Dai Gohonzon, which would include both the article I wrote and the alternate information that appears in the aforesaid section. In that case, in the Nichiren article, I would remove the heading "Completion of mission in this world" and replace it with a paragraph titled "Dai Gohonzon" that briefly explains what it is and that ends with a link to the full Dai Gohonzon article.

Based on all the reasons I have given thus far, in my view the header "Completion of mission in this world" is an opinion, not a hard fact. That's why I suggest a more neutral header for that section. I just don't have time to do what I've explained (create a new article, move stuff around) right now. Other projects going on. I can do it later. Maybe not until year's end. Maybe before though.

Regarding: >I'm sure you realize also that any Gosho directly
>touching on the Dai-Gohonzon as an extant object,
>directly or indirectly, would have to been ones written
>between 1279 and 1281, which doesn't leave very many.

If it weren't for the fact that the Dai Gohonzon was supposed to be Nichiren's lifetime achievement and for the fact that he was doggedly explicit about those aspects of his teachings that he deemed essential, his not mentioning the DG outright in at least one letter or treatise would not seem odd. But given the pattern of his writing life, this missing material sticks out.

Also, when I read "On Persecutioins Befalling the Sage" and see a point by point listing of persecutions that fulfill the prophecy of the Lotus Sutra coupled with a direct statment parallelling Nichiren's life to the lives of his precedecessors as votaries of the LS, I read the letter simply as him saying his life's purpose, like those of his predecessors, was fulfilled by living up to the Buddha's prophecy vis a vis the persecutions votraries will endure. Not only that, but in his case, he fulfilled the prophecy and endured persecutions in a way that no one else had ever done, and emerged absolutely victorious.

One needn't read between the lines to see what he says in the letter. He wrote it all very clearly. The muddiness only exists in the background information provided by the editors. If it weren't for that info, if we only had been exposed to Nichiren's letter, I cannot see how we would have logically concluded that he was writing about the Dai Gohonzon or the Gohonzon at all, since he mentions neither and says exactly what he means.--Faith Likewater 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Faith: Thanks for further comments. Now I see better where you're coming from. I also not realize that the characterization "fulfillment of mission" is inappropriate. I'll undertake the moving-around and rewriting work over the next few weeks and create the separate article. As long as you continue to watch the Nichiren page, you'll be able to observe progress and make changes you think necessary.

Apologies for my confusing you with contributor Robin. Meanwhile, it's time for me to hit the hay! Have a good one, Jersey_Jim 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

No problem and thanks for taking this on. I will tune in from time to time. --Faith Likewater 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim, FaithLikeWater -

Thanks both of you, for a wonderful and informative bit of dialogue. You're both over my head in your knowldege of the literature, and have inspired me to study more. Nonetheless, I do have this one comment to make regarding a comment made early on in this debate, buy Jim. I quote:

"He also frequently mentions maintaining respect for the priesthood and the head temple,

regardless of what disagreements my arise; and he called the Soka Gakkai a

"cart for gathering up deluded people and taking them to the Dai-Gohonzon."

(I'll see if I can find the exact source and wording for you, but I have to dig the book out of a closet.)"

I am compelled to remind youo that a quote such as this is not acceptable without an exact reference. If you haven't found the book yet, you really should change it, to seperate your interpretation or memory of what you read, from the meaning you promote here, and assign to Toda. If you know what I mean...

Other than that, you also have inspired in me a curiosity about how Makiguchi and Toda really practiced -- did they really see themselves as Nichiren Shoshu in the tradition of NS? Or did they always see themselves as seperate, as followers of Nichiren, primarily, Soka Gakkai secondarily, and of NS priesthood only consequentially....I wonder...Any thoughts? - R aka Ruby --71.250.122.11 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Improving the article

In order to improve the article - as was suggested in previous inputs and Discussion - I suggested a combination of deleting (detailed and repeated sections), combining (related parts into one section)and relocating some sections of the article, to make it better. Here is a summary:

/1/ Deleted the separate section "Nichiren Identity". But the subject of "Identity" and "Titles" given to a person are most related. The section on "Posthumous Titles" contained good information and it was left as it was, but it was missing the important information of how Nichiren identified himself. Titles spoke basically about how "others" see Nichiren. It is an academic approach to quote the person involved on how he viewed himself. The new related section is “ Nichiren’s Identity and Posthumous Titles”.

/2/ Deleted section on “Nichiren Views’ – as it gave too detailed information - part of which is included in other sections.

/3/ There was a section of “Nichiren Teachings after his Death” squeezed (without any refrence) in the article but which did not have a section about “Nichiren Teachings” themselves. What are they, reader would ask! An article about Nichiren must include an overall development of his teachings, in particular those commonly shared between various schools.

/4/ The section on “Nichiren and Mahayana” contained important teachings of Nichiren which all schools agree upon, and I have added Nichiren Shu references to the text. However, a better title (than the Nichiren and Mahayana) would be more informative, giving the article most needed information of what were main Nichiren’s teachings, and their later development (without detailed text). This has been done in the section" Development of Nichiren's Teachings" and it included also refrence to his teachings after death but without going into deep details.

/5/ I think that the general flow of sections of the article now is characterized with clarity and meaningful presentation. As for the source of refrences, I'd like to comment that: quoting Nichiren’s own words is an academic necessity for a balanced article, and inevitably the source may refer to SGI simply and only because the source is readily available on line. Nichiren’s writings do not belong to one particular school. Now I am rather inclined to write the refrence as (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin) as this will be more impartial and would avoid any sensitivity of diverse presence of Nichiren schools.

I believe that we can cooperate and leave antagonism aside, and this will reflect on making the outcome higher in quality.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see some quite achievement here to get the structure into a chronological order and focus on main issues.

I changed the section regarding post-tatsunokuchi to a more balanced view – as conclusions are different within Nichiren Buddhism.

Why some see Nichiren as a reformer is evident throughout his work as he emphasised the veneration of the Lotos Sutra. He did however criticise the condition of Tendai at his time, but as he never cut ties officially that's why some regard him as a Tendai-reformer … that this did not happen and a separate Buddhist branch would develop happened after his death is a different issue. So saying that “Through his writings, it seems that Nichiren was not trying to reform other sects.” can not be verified and is a PVO.

Deleted “(see the compilation of Nichiren's exchanges with government leaders and Buddhist practitioners in "The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin" 1999). “ as this work is already mentioned in the section dealing with available translations. There are different translations and comments available so adding a reference should be enough.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your editing, makes sense, and thank you for the cooperation.

In regrad to whether Nichire was reforming Tendai (or establishing his brand of teachings surpassing Tendai): I think the article had to include Nichiren’s own opinion about the matter. His affiliation with the Tendai was practically nonexistent in both official linkage and - more importantly - throughout his teachings, explaining their failure on various fronts. His affectionate contact with his previous Tendai teacher Dozen-Bo of Seicho-Ji temple was out of compassion and willingness to save him from sufferings, nothing more. Nichiren firmly rejected Tendai's hierarchy, structure, teachings and behavior: ”...the Tendai school [who do not refute misleading teachings] are all great enemies of the people” - openly said in The Opening of the Eyes.

Nichiren humbly stated that he does not intend to create a new school only because he was not after hierarchy and titles - and did not want to be a high priest of a new sect. Nevertheless he organized a wide network of followers and assigned to many tasks and organizational duties, and he named his 5 senior priests, all indicating his reformist determination to perpetuate his newly developed teachings in a well organized structure of ordinary people.

Nichiren's teachings were (still are) so revolutionary that even the Tendai monks failed to comprehend his view that in the Latter Day of the Law only the Daimoku and Gohonzon are valid, and not the traditional understanding of the Lotus Sutra. Dr, J. Stone stated that Nichiren changed even the Lotus Sutra’s structure by inscribing the Gohonzon, in which he included the lower worlds and the Buddha’s enemy Devadatta in the mandala – although these were not present during the Ceremony in the Air. That’s why the Gohonzon is also regarded as “Nichiren’s Lotus Sutra” – a very revolutionary concept in Buddhism, and beyond:

In fact, the Gohonzon can be regarded as the only document in the history of humanity – as far as I know - which found a solution to humanity’s essential problem of Evil, troubling people along the ages.

In pre-Lotus Buddhism, all the sutras despised evil doers and predicted their kalpas of suffering, and Judaism, Christianity and Islam offered no radical solution to the problem of evil apart from relocating the Devil to Hell (later on, sometime in the future after the judgment day). The Lotus Sutra offered the solution of “enlightenment of the devil” and Nichiren made it easy for ordinary people to control their negative/devilish functions through working to enlighten their own fundamental darkness to the supremacy of the Law, a process of transformation, put in the Gohonzon in bold characters.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well some regard Nichiren as a reformer, why and in which context they do should be learned form those schools who hold that view. As I stated earlier Nichiren made his observations more that 700 years ago and since times have changed and Buddhism not a de facto state religion so have changed the ways in which Buddhist schools interact with each other including most of the Nichiren Schools. On the rest I would rather not comment as this to this article would be a PVO anyway and is more down to personal belief. But if those views are held in your organisation as doctrine I yet again underline those issues are missing in the SGI-article.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, you wrote: "It seems that Nichiren was not trying to reform other sects." For the most part, he was trying to suppress them. He was a surgeon attempting to remove the cancer from the body of the Buddha. Nichiren was hardly a Tendai prelate, having repudiated Tendai even more forcefully than the Nembutsu in the Selection of the Time and Repaying Debts of Gratitude. In fact, he taught that ever since Jikaku, "the Tendai scholars' views are as useless as last year's calendar."[WND 963 Persecutions by Sword and Staff] -- Mark R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B86:87A9:E824:F777:9FD7:86ED (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Treatise (first remonstrance)

The following text block seems not to be connected with the rest of the text in this section: Nichirō agreed with Nisshō's defense of Nichiren as a Tendai reformer[citation needed]. He founded a practice hall that became part of Ikegami Honmon-ji, the site of Nichiren's death. His school is now part of Nichiren-shū. JimRenge (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Fanaticism leads to Vandalism

A "good" example of how 'Fanatiscism leads to Vandalism' is what an editor:Radd Mitchell (see history of article) has been doing so far. According to him, Nichiren Buddhism is practiced only by Nichiren Shoshu and cannot bear the weight of the truth in reality that other groups also practice Nichiren Buddhism (according to their interpretation). In an environment of a temple, you can assert your POV that only Shoshu practices Nichiren's Buddhism - but in the environment of academic presentation, or an encyclopedia, reality must be impartially presented. Hijacking Wikipedia to put biased and incorrect advertisment for the priesthood speaks by itself of how immature and narrowminded taught fanaticism is.

Just to clarify how fanaticism and one-side stubborn teachings of priests can lead to disasters, take a look at the MiddleEast. In this Wiki environment Fanaticism leads here to Vandalism of articles - but the same spirit of fanaticism can develope in war stituations to violence as well. In fact suppression of the truth and enforcement of one side's view only is an act of violence. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)