Jump to content

Talk:Nichiren/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Only NICHRIEN SHOSHU Uphold The True Teachings Of Nichrien Dishonin

What Nichrin Shu Should Do Is Change There Name To SHUISM AND Soka Gaki Should Change There Religions Name To IKADAISM BUT JUST KEEP NICHRIEN DISHONIN'S Name OUT OF IT ONLY NICHRIEN SHOSHU UPHOLDS THE DISHONINS TRUE TEACHINGS Period End Of Discussion !!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radd mitchell (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Radd Mitchell please listen carefully. I honestly feel sorry for your anger and dissatisfaction. Please accept the reality about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a private property for Nichiren Shoshu or any other religious organisation. For this reason the article can contain different sources and interpretations.
You have expressed your views, Ok, but this is a right for others as well, freedom of expression of what others believe in. Read what you wrote above and see how many mistakes you made.
I was once a Nichiren Shoshu member and I understand your feelings. But Wikipedia is not about personal feelings. We can disagree about many things - but we can also share in making our input and words more valuable and beneficial. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger

I would like to merge the sections “Nichiren’s identity and posthumous titles” and “Enlightenment and Buddhahood”. In the latter information is repeated and the quotes given try to sway the reader into a certain direction. I do think though that some of that information is lacking in articles about SGI and Nichiren Shoshu. I would however keep all references given. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits

I added "equality of all people and eternal life" to the essence of Guatama Buddha's teaching in the first paragraph. Cause and effect and karma have Brahmin origins. Those edits have been removed. Nichiren (日蓮) (February 16, 1222 – October 13, 1282) was a Buddhist monk who lived during the Kamakura period (1185–1333) in Japan. Nichiren taught devotion to the Lotus Sutra (entitled Myōhō-Renge-Kyō in Japanese)— which contained Gautama Buddha's teachings towards the end of his life — as the exclusive means to attain enlightenment. Nichiren believed that this sutra contained the essence of all of Gautama Buddha's teachings relating to the laws of cause and effect and karma'. This devotion to the sutra entails the chanting of Nam(u)-Myōhō-Renge-Kyō (referred to as "daimoku") as the essential practice of the teaching.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltdan43 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: Feel free to reintroduce this - if you can verfy (verifiable) it with third-party reliable sources (WP:SOURCE). Wikipedia articles should refer to facts and interpretations that have been published in independant, secondary sources. Please provide a reliable source and please don*t refer to religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will find a reference. It is only in the Lotus Sutra that women and evil people are viewed with the potential for enlightenment along with everyone else.Ltdan43 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Ltdan43 4 May 2014

JimRenge—I added my edit and ref, however, I need some assistance in putting the ref. if the right place, thanks.Ltdan43 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014

WP:TUTOR--Catflap08 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Ltdan please do get yourself familiar with wikipedia guidelines. Please also note that this is a general article on Nichiren. Any interpretation of his teachings should be dealt with in the articles of respective schools of Nichiren Buddhism. It was a long road to get this article as unbiased as possible. In articles on individual schools however it can be much more beneficial to define the respective dogma. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Catflap. My edits weren't meant to be so much an interpretation of Nichiren's teachings as to what the essence of the Lotus Sutra is. It is only in the Lotus Sutra that women and evil people can attain enlightenment attesting to the equality of all people. The teaching of karma was prevalent before the birth of the Buddha, so, although Nichiren had his own view of karma, it seems that to say that he considered it the essence of the Buddha's teaching is off base. There is no reference for that assertion anyway. The one Buddha vehicle and expedient means are also primary teachings of the Lotus Sutra that Nichiren embraced, but require some extensive explanation. What should we do?Ltdan43 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No harm done but then this should be mentioned in the article on the Lotus Sutra with non-primary sources and linked to the Nichiren article. Please note that not all Nichiren Schools emphasize this fact to much --- some simply go ahead and ordain women based on this. Yet again I believe that article should be bibliographical on most parts. As I said no harm done – its just because there are quite a number of Nichiren traditions proclaiming to know what Nichiren was all about … mentioning them all simply goes beyond what this article should be about. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I read the text in Buswell first and half of the Stone/Tricycle Interview (all I could get). I think this sentence (or a variation) might be acceptable in the lead:
Nichiren believed that this sutra contained the essence of all of Gautama Buddha's teachings to lead all people without distinction to enlightenment. This reflects Stone/Buswell : "(...) Nichiren developed a doctrine of exclusive devotion to the Lotus sutra which he regarded as the Buddhas highest teaching and the sole vehicle for realizing buddhahood now in the final dharma age (mappo)."
The part about cause and effect may be appropriate but it is unsourced.
Perhaps we can avoid "... and revealed the eternity of the Buddha’s life as well as that of all people". I did not find this in the source.

JimRenge (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again to both of you for your patience! I would agree with JimRenge's suggestion. The lifespan of the Buddha is addressed in the Lotus Sutra and in the reference, but it is not stated concisely that all life is eternal, so I would agree to leave it out. I just had trouble with assigning credit for karma to the wrong source.Ltdan43 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Catflap08: Do you agree? JimRenge (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

added two wikilinks which got deleted--Catflap08 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we reference the "cause and effect and karma" statements? As far as I know, the Lotus Sutra—what Nichiren considers the essence of the Buddha's teachings—is not the originator of these concepts. Hinduism and Brahminism embraced them before the advent of the Buddha.Ltdan43 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference is the respective article that is linked (blue letters)--Catflap08 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I read the links. If the Lotus Sutra is stated as the essence of the Buddha's teachings, there is no reference in the links to the Lotus Sutra. Buddhism does embrace the concept and offers freedom from the boundaries set by karma, but I am not sure this is the essence of the Lotus Sutra or the Buddha's teaching. There are teachings in the sutra that are unique to it and it alone. But I am not going to pursue the matter. I can live with what is there. Thanks for responding to my inquiries, I do appreciate it.Ltdan43 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the issue of cause an effect are an important issue in all Buddhist teaching. This is why a section, however bad or well written, is part on the article of “cause and effect” form a Buddhist point of view. Any issues unique to Nichiren Buddhism could be added in either article – that if its true for all Nichiren Buddhist schools which would have to be substantiated using non-primary sources. For specific Nichiren Schools I would not be to dogmatic on primary sources as one would think that they should know best what they believe in, but that is up to the article on any specific Nichiren tradition. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
All content must be verifiable. Neither the wikilinks to cause and effect and karma nor the sources given, verify the first part the sentence. I tagged the sentence with "Not In Source", because the reader might think it is in the sources given.
"Nichiren believed that this sutra contained the essence of all of Gautama Buddha's teachings relating to the laws of cause and effect, karma" (...).
The mentioning of "relating to the laws of cause and effect, karma" was questioned by Ltdan43. I don`t know what Nichiren believed - I have to rely on sources. Catflap08 : Ltdan43 provided sources for his change of the sentence. I think your addition should also be sourced. JimRenge (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets add tags sentence by sentence then--Catflap08 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary, I just thought that it would be more consistent for the sentence to be referenced on both accounts: karma and cause and effect and enlightenment without distinction for all. It had to come from somewhere.Ltdan43 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Tathagata knows and sees the Three Worlds in accordance with reality: There is no Birth-and-Death, whether backsliding or emerging; likewise their is neither existence in the world nor extinction; they are not real; they are not void, they are not thus; they are not different. It is not as the Three Worlds see the Three Worlds. In such a matter as this the Tathagata sees clearly and is without error." Lotus Sutra Chapter 16. Nichiren restates this teaching, "Realize that the time will come when the truth will be revealed that both the person and the Law are unaging and eternal." -- On Practicing the Buddha's Teachings [Nyosetsu Shugyo Sho]. Mark Rogow 06/28/2014

lunar calendar

The lunar calendar, no offence, is of no importance given to the dates mentioned as the dates refer to the calendar generally in use.So if you do not have a clue of what you are doing refrain from doing so.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Prophecies

I removed the line that stated Nichiren began making prophecies on Sado in the Gohonzon section. He made predictions prior to that: "In the first month of 1268, envoys from Khubilai Khan arrived in Kamakura and presented the shogunate with a message demanding, in veiled terms, that Japan acknowledge fealty to the Mongol empire. The Daishonin explains the circumstances that led to his writing of On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land eight years earlier and points out that the arrival of the Mongol emissaries with a demand for allegiance substantiates the prophecy of foreign invasion that he had made in that treatise. (WND-1, 164)Ltdan43 (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Is there a problem with defining hosshku kempon?Ltdan43 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

True identity

The article on Nichiren is written in a way that incorporates generally accepted facts about his life and key issues of his teachings. The issue on “true identity” is very specific and by no means shared by all Nichiren schools hence the wording “turning point”. I would even go further as the issue of his true identity is one of the major controversies within Nichiren Buddhism. All major Nichiren schools are mentioned and linked in the article, so it is best to include the true identity issue in the articles of those Nichiren schools and groups to whom the “true identity” issue is a major concern. To proclaim a true identity of Nichiren in this rather general article is somewhat deceptive, especially in a section biographical in most parts. Again this article is not the place to get into every nitty gritty detail of Nichiren’s teachings, otherwise adherents of certain interpretation would engross the article for themselves - this would be highly counterproductive. I therefore moved the reference to the section on posthumous titles.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that there are differing opinions about Nichiren's identity. That's why I did not define it specifically as "the Buddha of the Latter Day" or "Bodhisattva Superior Practices" or just a Bodhisattva. Wikipedia describes it in the Asia section of the 1271 entry as "September 12 – According to the followers of Nichiren Buddhism, the sect's founder, Nichiren, reaches a turning point known as hosshaku kempon, as he discards his identity as a mortal priest and begins to reveal himself as a reincarnation of the Buddha." I think that definition should be edited to reflect a more general explanation. Leaving the reader here with an untranslated Japanese term seems to be more confusing than educational.Ltdan43 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Even saying that he is the reincarnation of the Buddha is only true for some Nichiren schools, amongst Nichiren schools they are even a minority. To include it in the section on posthumous titles sure (that would be the Daishonin part)– as this section already indicates what position Nichiren holds within various Nichiren schools. What would be superfluous is to use this article to describe the teachings of individual schools. That should be dealt with in detail withis respective articles. As already mentioned this is issue is one of major debates amongst Nichiren schools. Even when looking at Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai, both regarding Nichirern as a Buddha, there are various ways in which they approach the issue. It took quite some time to clear the article from sectarian quarrels. In the end his life includes certain incidents that should by all means be mentioned, but interpreting those incidents was and is mainly done by his followers. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that we don’t want to define Nichiren’s identity as that proposed by any one school. I referred to the Wikipedia posting on the 1271 site as an example of what we don’t want to do—state that he is the Buddha of the Latter Day. He wrote about the Tatsunokuchi Persecution: “…this person named Nichiren was beheaded. It is his soul that has come to this island of Sado…” (WND-1, 269) I think that leaves it open to interpretation by the different schools. We can define hosshaku kempon as “casting off the transient and revealing the true” and not specify a particular identity, Buddha or otherwise. Anyway, I am not obsessed with making the edit, but I don’t think letting it stand offers much to the reader, unless they understand Japanese.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Even when one speaks Japanese, I guess all other Nichiren schools do have adherents who speak Japanese, the question is authenticity. If time on hand I will take a look at the entry. Nichiren was nearly beheaded that is about it and the incident holds different implications for respective schools. Please note that Nichiren’s writings are not always undisputed either, some are clearly written by Nichiren, some are regarded apocryphal as the authorship (being copies) is not undisputed. The only Nichiren School that to my knowledge does endorses a rather scientific approach to those documents is Nichiren Shu. They do not condemn those writings, but underline the fact that authenticity cannot be guaranteed. On a private note I am aware that some schools regard Nichiren a Buddha, which is based on few sentences that could be interpreted in various ways. Being a prolific writer it is not recorded that he described himself as being the “true Buddha”. My bet would be to keep the entry as neutral as possible. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Catflap, I think that edit serves the purpose.Ltdan43 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Gohonzon picture

In the article is a picture of the Gohonzon. For some Nichiren sects the is not of great significance, but I know for sure that for members of Nichiren Soshu and millions of Soka Gakkai members worldwide making a picture of this object of devotion (and as such publishing one) is profoundly offensive to human nature. I don't have the time to check Wikipedia's policy's about this now, but I strongly urge to consider removing and destroying this picture. --FaZ72 (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would advise you to read up on Wikipedia’s guidelines on that issue and ask you read prior discussions on the issue.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nichirenism

198.8.80.203: Your edit here misses that Wikipedia:Citing sources#When not to cite states: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." It's not controversial that Nichirenism exists. Ogress smash! 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

@198.8.80.87: We do not typically cite the lede. Also, you asked for proof of Nichirenism and the League of Blood Incident, which have their own pages. You can start by going to Tanaka Chigaku and Nissho Inoue and checking out some of the sources on those pages like Montgomery, Daniel B (1991). Fire in the Lotus: The Dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. Mandala. pp. 217–8. ISBN 978-1-85274-091-7.. Ogress smash! 03:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@ @198.8.80.87: and User Masalou2000
Please note WP:PRIMARY and general guidelines on WP:LEAD--Catflap08 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

New shouting and swearing section

SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Hello!!! Tsunesaburō Makiguchi birthday was on 23 July 1871, NOT 6 June, and also Nichiren birthday was on 16 February 1222, NOT 6 April!!! Don't know what the fucking hell that you all doing like!...SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just like in the other article I‘d like to remind you that swearing does not really help matters. I do acknowledge the fact that there is much confusion on dates like this one, but simply replacing one with the other does indicate that you do not seem to have much of a clue yourself either. In literature different dates are used pending on which calendar system the information is based on i.e Lunar calendar or Gregorian calendar.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@ SA 13 Bro Please also note WP:CIV. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminding The FAKE Birthday

Excuse me! Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to remind you all that; Tsunesaburō Makiguchi real birthday was on 23 July 1871, NOT 6 June, and also Nichiren real birthday was on 16 February 1222, NOT 6 April! So we hope that everybody NOT to citation the fake of dates, otherwise, you will get error confusion! Thank you and have a nice day...

不好意思! 女士及先生们, 我想要提醒你们大家的那就是; 牧口常三郎真正的生日是在1871年7月23日, 不是什么6月6日, 还有大日莲真正的生日是在1222年2月16日, 不是什么4月6日! 所以我们希望大家别引用那个假的日期, 否则, 你将会得到错误的困惑! 谢谢及祝你们日子愉快...

Excuse me unknown person, please look up existing guidelines and look up mentioned sources on the issue thereby clarifying within in the article why different dates may be cited. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro: I would remind you that not logging in and IP-hopping is considered WP:SOCK; please log in to edit. Ogress smash! 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08 @Ogress: Want to report and said that I'm vandalism, request for ban my account and crash me out, just go ahead! I'm not afraid of that!...

You are being aggressive, making personal attacks, socking, and otherwise responding against Wikiquette. If you didn't call people names and shriek at us, we could have a conversation. But there's no conversation happening here and it's your choice. Calm down and talk to us instead of yelling and accusing and maybe we could talk. Ogress smash! 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nichiren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reminding of Sock puppetry policy

50.198.202.41 Hi! please don't make any editing to prevent you'll get suspected as Sock puppetry, useless this reliable source have made changed on that, beware of Wikipedia community policy. SA 13 Bro (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III Hi, please don't archiving this note that I have wrote here, there was some problem in former ago which I have make an logged-out editing about Nichiren's birthday. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nichiren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of Birth and other Dates According to our Modern Gregorian Calendar

Hello All, I have been correcting the date of birth since the commonly misunderstood birth date of Nichiren keeps getting reverted, especially when it conflicts with the authority of a Nichiren practitioner's specific sect. It must be understood that according to the Japanese lunar calendar, Spring marked the beginning of the year unlike our modern Gregorian calendar. The 16th day of the second month falls upon April 6th, and not the 16th of the second month of our Gregorian calendar (Feb. 16). Those that are aware of the calendar usage of Nichiren's time will obviously know this and I cannot see how someone who was born in Japan at that time would use the same Western calendar of today! The only researched publication that I could find that points to this fact is a sectarian source (Soka Gakkai translation of the Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings Online, Introduction). I believe this has bothered an editor(s) that seems to be for Nichiren Shoshu promotion on this page, unfortunately, and keeps changing it because they are bothered that it is a Soka Gakkai source, that it goes against their religious establishment's authority, or both. In either case, I am still baffled that people will change this date despite the logic behind it and ask for not turning this simple fact into a sectarian debate.

I am posting to make this issue of dates public. Thank you.Makalo711 (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, and for those that want to see an online source pointing to what I said, though an SG source [1]

What to Put in the Lead (Beginning Section) of Nichiren entry

Hello,

I wanted to discuss the content of the lead with others who have interest in contributing to this page. In the lead, information should breifly cover what is in the whole Nichiren entry, and shouldn't have to be cited. Also, specific, non-general information should not be in there. I have seen one person who constantly thinks the Fuji sect's Daigohonzon should be part of the lead when honzons/gohonzons were only established as its specific Nichiren's sects object of devotion roughly 400 years later during their Nichikan reformation. The topic of gohonzons therefore is a sect specific bit of information and should be included in a particular entry rather than the lead which deals with general information. Let's make this entry a worth while read by improving the lead and entry itself.

Please share thoughts. 72.234.118.113(talk) 21:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the user that has placed the link below, http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/ott/Introduction/2, by anonymous user 72.234.118.113 is implying that my intentions are skewed to a certain sect, which was from a SGI online source. I dispute this, and used this since it was an acessible online source. Furthermore, I see that the mention of gohonzons is again on the Lead. I stand by the logic I have mentioned above, and am open for discussion.Makalo711 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead should summarize the most important points of the article (WP:LEAD). I propose to move the disputed sentence to the "Gohonzon" section if it can be verified by reliable, unbiased academic sources (WP:BURDEN, WP:RS. JimRenge (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I second the motion to move the sentence to the "Gohonzon" section.Makalo711 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The picture of Nichiren

Nichiren lived in the 1200's in Japan-- the oldest picture depiction that I could find for Nichiren was the Hakii picture, which was painted as early as 100~ years after his death (maybe earlier) or the latest estimate of 200 years after his death. It is considered to be the most accurate depiction and is in the Minobusan Kuonji Temple, which is the head temple for Nichiren Shu and dates to 1274, which would be before Nichiren's death(1282).

I readded the Hakii painting, which was the original picture on the article, because it was, in fact, the original picture associated with Nichiren's page before the pencil drawing replaced it. The Hakii picture is either THE oldest (could date to shortly after the death of Nichiren) or among the oldest depictions of Nichiren and it is found in the head Nichiren Buddhist temple, a temple which existed before his death. The one that SA 13 Bro is proposing is a more modern pencil drawing, which is a fine drawing, but is not an accurate portrait of Nichiren and although we don't truly know which depiction IS the most accurate, the head temple of the Nichiren sect of Buddhism considers the Hakii portrait to be the most accurate, and it may very well be the case due to how close the painting could be in age to the death of Nichiren. If the Hakii painting was painted at the earliest date that some estimate the picture to be, then certainly some people who studied under and actually knew Nichiren personally would have seen the picture and vouched for its accuracy. That is why it is in the temple that is considered to be the principle Buddhist temple for Nichiren in Japan.

Sad

Seems this article too has been taken over by Soka Gakkai. Just for the note, Dai-Shonin is not a title used by all schools – extremely unprofessional behaviour by the editors that is … remaining diplomatic it’s simply NICHIREN. The picture used resembles a kong fu film /rock - star – not only unprofessional but pathetic that is. Also missing are the titles that were bestowed upon Nichiren by the imperial court – you guys simply deleted them. Reading the article turns from foul, unprofessional, pathetic to simply sad. Sad would be the best to describe the life state of those who caused that. --2.247.254.46 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC) The picture of Nichiren even resembles Ikeda --- good grief. What’s wrong with you guys??--2.247.254.46 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, Nichiren are not what such Great Sage (Dai-Shonin). Regarding about the image, is nothing wrong on it, but it should be resized back in 200px. Long time ago, Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai was the same organized religion, so there is no any rare to Daisaku Ikeda opinion. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It is believed, especially in Nichiren Shoshu

I removed the word "especially." I do not see evidence that groups outside of Nichiren Shoshu believe this. BrandenburgG (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No issue, there is an vast believed from Soka Gakkai and not just only the groups from Nichiren Shoshu. Some of the schools are even still described Nichiren the fake appellation as so-called Great Sage (Daishonin), this may lets people feel perplexedly on that instructive, based from the sources information at outside. SA 13 Bro (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nichiren. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the dead link fix. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I am no registered user, but how on earth can somebody be so malicious and delete names in quotes and even book titles???? Is this not a case of vandalism? Please have a look at this: [1]. The editor who has done this is still editing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.254.10 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@2.247.254.10: Who vandalism? I am also a vandal fighter in Wikipedia. I am actually want to have the conversation chats with that IP editor at here about the issue just now, but I didn't received any response until now. May I know, are you also that IP editor? SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What goes through someone’s mind when changing the wording of citations and even book titles? That is sick. Somebody must have been on a Daishonin-hunt there. The book is called ‘The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin’ NOT ‘The Writings of Nichiren’, Causton’s book title is not ‘Buddha in Daily Life, An Introduction to the Buddhism of Nichiren’ but ‘Buddha in Daily Life, An Introduction to the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin’, in another CITATION (!!!) it does not say ‘disciples’ but ‘Bodhisattvas’. With all due respect one can (may or should) disagree with SGI’s teachings, but changing the content of published material and even book titles is slightly schizophrenic. If this is not vandalism I have no idea what is. I am a reader (not an editor) who now and again turns to Wikipedia and noticed this by coincidence – this questions the reliability of this text and the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.9 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@82.113.106.9: Just read the WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I doesn't want to argument about the vandalism topic with you, writing the honorific about Nichiren due to respect one each other by the disciples, for what it worth? Encyclopedic content is also WP:NOTMEMORIAL site. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@ talk You are willingly lying and falsifying information – are you aware of that? You are discrediting Wikipedia. If any registered editor reads this I hope they know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.244.177 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@2.247.244.177: I am lying what? SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This IP range 2.247.240.0/21 has been global blocked for 1 day by DerHexer due to a LTA vandal. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

104.172.184.93

I am also hope you don't adding this person into article on any topics as well, he was actually the devil king of sixth heaven, and not the imaginative as some of the IP editors mind is thinking about that he was so sincere to be Nichiren one of the disciple. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Page move request

Can this page please be moved to Nichiren Daishonin? Thank you! SportsFan007 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

@SportsFan007: Actually, Nichiren’s full name was not Nichiren Daishonin. Just for the note that "DaiShonin" is not a title used by all schools which mentioned by the IP editor on above at here, why do you go and remove the redirected content from here? SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@SA 13 Bro: I undid my change on the redirect. Also, He was referred to as Nichiren Daishonin, not Nichiren. All the books with his writings say Nichiren Daishonin. SportsFan007 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Why is incorrect information being reinserted repeatedly?

It’s not “The Major Writings of Nichiren”, but “The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin” – published by SGI/Nichiren Shoshu

It’s not “The Writings of Nichiren”, but “The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin” – published by SGI

It’s not “Writings of Nichiren”, but “Writings of Nichiren Shonin” – published by Nichiren Shu

I could not find any source that refers to Nichiren as “Dai-Nichiren”, but sources that refer to Nichiren as Nichiren Shonin, Nichiren Daishonin, Nichiren Daibosatsu, Rissho Daishi or simply Rissho. Why are people lying and getting away with it?--82.113.98.119 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s an old name used in Japan. At the Head temple in Taisekiji they sometimes refer to it as Dai nichiren, in Kitayama as well they use it. 104.172.184.93 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Can any body else tell me that when they will continuing to use the old name? SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you, SA 13 Bro, please be so kind and enlighten a well-disposed reader what the old names are? In what position are you to determine names, mentioned in literature, as old vs new? --2.247.246.165 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Also. Is there any resource were one is able to look up the new names compared with the old names as used in literature?--2.247.246.165 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, the Japanese imperial court was actually the fascism. The new name is a libel, which did by among of corruption monks from Nichiren Shoshu temple and the corruption Minoru Harada from SGI as well, I hope you all would realize on that. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The SGI is absolutely not corrupted!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
Daisaku Ikeda is a great universe man in SGI, and I trusted him. But for Minoru Harada is a corruption president leader; he is! SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dai Nichiren

I found some lead about Nichiren is Dai Nichiren like this, this, there was a eBook document author by Daisaku Ikeda said that it was the Writings of Nichiren, and didn't said that it was the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Could some one have a view and comment on that? SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image are using by google as well!

I can't understand why some people want to change the photo, the image are used by the google search as well. And also, why some of the fellows like to keep persistently appellation Nichiren full name as Nichiren Daishonin? Not every school are using that title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.207.176.69 (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Could please don't?

Could somebody else please stop adding the full name Nichiren Daishonin on it? Yes, there was some certain information based on the sources from outside, but not every schools are using that full name title, one of the IP editor also commented on above at here in previously. Encyclopedic content are not everything such as like the useful honorific full name for disciples appellation due to respect one each other as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, here is also WP:NOTMEMORIAL site as well. Could please don't making the POV pushing, what such censorship and ownership kind of commenting? Thank you for your cooperation. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Since nobody knows for sure what Nichiren looked like – in most parts he is pictured as a rather stocky person in historic works of art - it might be a good idea to simply include no picture of him at all as an alternative?? To my mind the picture in the article resembles far too much young Daisaku Ikeda, I find that a bit over the top – tacky actually. --82.113.99.181 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have already provided the reliable source for Nichiren image, believe it or not is up to your faith. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Image

@Kintetsubuffalo: The image was inaccurate to the 13 century portrait, I don't think any images should be needed. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro:Wikipedia seems to differ with you, as they put the image on today's mainpage. I'm going with them on this one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/ott/Introduction/2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nichiren/Archive_3&oldid=1136371093"