Kaidan-in Honzon = Honmon Kaidan DaiGohonzon
John Ayres
"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, i.e., Nichiren) enscribed 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, Nichiren Shoshu Seiten, pgs. 731-732
The Kaidan-in Honzon is the Honmon Kaidan no DaiGohonzon. It was made
from the same tree as the three statues of Nichiren. We know the three statues
exist and that Nichiren Shu recognizes that Nippo carved them. If the three
statues were made of camphor, then the argument that camphor was not
"readily available" in the Minobu area is false.
Why hasn't Nichiren Shu ever made the argument that the three statues are not
made of camphor? It would seem that this would support their argument that
camphor was not "readily available" in the Minobu area. Yet, in all of the
literature, there is no such argument.
What are we to assume from this? Perhaps no argument has ever been made
because, there is no question that the three statues were made from camphor.
Nikko Shonin stated in his own handwriting in the original transfer document
to Nichimoku Shonin (3rd HP), the Nikko Ato-joujou no koto:
Article 2: "The DaiGohonzon that Nichiren Daishonin entrusted upon my person
in the 2nd year of Koan (1279) I hereby transfer to Nichimoku." Ibid, pg. 519
There are two original transfer documents that were written by Nikko Shonin.
The first one is an original draft of the transfer document written in 1330
(2nd year of Gentoku) and the second is an original of the transfer document
written in 1332 (1st year of Shoukei = Shoukei Gannen). They are both signed
by Nikko Shonin. A study of Nikko's signatures can be found on pages 191 to
229 in the book titled, Nichiren Shoshu-shi-no Kisoteki-kenkyu, published by
Sankibo Bussho-rin. The signature of Nikko Shonin on the original transfer
document has been determined as consistent with his signature for that period
of his life. (See, Shukudo Takahashi, Nikko Shonin Gojutsusaku Haiko, pg. 412)
Nichimoku Shonin stated: "That (DaiGohonzon which is described in the Nikko
Ato-joujou no koto, the Transfer Document from Nikko to Nichimoku) which was
entrusted upon the person of Nikko (in the 2nd year of Koan) is the Plank
Gohonzon. It is now here at this temple (Taisekiji). The Hall is where the
Plank Gohonzon is.... 3rd Month, 2nd Year of Shoukei (1333) Nichimoku Seal"
Ibid, pgs. 658-660
Now, the question of the century. For all the talk about the DaiGohonzon being
a plank of wood, etc., etc., why, among all the "experts", has not one person
accurately described the DaiGohonzon? What do I mean by "accurately
described"?
The DaiGohonzon has an extremely peculiar shape. Hence, the question of the
century:
What is that shape?
Answer: Nippo honed only one side -- the front.
The back is ROUND.
I guess all of the speculation and the allegations about the DaiGohonzon,
based on a mere photograph of the front of the DaiGohonzon, which was
surreptiously taken at a great distance away by someone who owned a cheap
camera, and that was obviously retouched as the quality of the original
photograph was so grainy and poor that you could hardly distinguish the
Chinese characters on it, much less analyse it with any amount of accuracy,
and even the allegations that Nichijo (whether Nichijo actually made those
allegations or not [or whether they were merely attributed to him at a later
date by persons unknown] has not yet been confirmed with any documentation,
other than a record of a conversation between two priests who lived more than
a hundred years after Nichijo) made allegations, were just a lot of unfounded
crap, because, let's face it, not one person in modern history outside of
Nichiren Shoshu, not even Nichijo of Kitayama Honmonji, or even the priests
who had that conversation, which was nothing more than gossip, had ever seen
it up close, much less examined or measured it. If they had, they would have
known it's peculiar shape.
Stephanie, Bruce, Mark, Marc, Lamont, Montgomery, Murano, etc., should have
at least looked, before they opened their mouths.
I wonder what kind of karma is generated from slandering the Kaidan-in Honzon
(DaiGohonzon) that Nichiren Daishonin left for all the people of the world?
John Ayres
TaMo...@accessnv.com
**********************************************************************
For Information Concerning Soka Gakkai, Visit:
The Clearing House
URL Address: http://coyote.accessnv.com:80/tamonten/
**********************************************************************
John Petry
in areas with regard to which he has no special training or ability. He
conveniently ignores the historical record and uses self serving Nichiren
Shoshu docummentation to support his proposals. He still can't get
around the historical record. His precious plank didn't apppear until
after the deaths of both Nichiren and Nikko. Nichiren never one metioned
it nor does any other contemporary of his. It would have been very hard
to hid that plank in his residence at Minobu. It isn't catalogued
anywhere and the Shoshu as Ayres admits, refuses to allow anyone to
examine it to validate it. Although they are quite willing to show it to
visiting Catholic clergy, so one wonders about the sacred claim Ayres
likes to make. There are other points to make on this but that can come
later, after I return from the Dharma Conference and work related travel
next week.