Gohonzon
ly...@usa.net
An innocent question to everyone who is concerned:
Why would you settle for any Gohonzon that was not inscribed by Nichiren
himself if you've chosen to practice Nichiren's Buddhism,
especially since they are available?
Just wondering?
A Buddhist
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Michael Chacamaty
Mark writes...
>This is a recently manufactured theory that has never before been put
>foward by any sect at any time in the past. To see some special power
or
>saftey in a photo offset copy of a Mandala inscribed by Nichiren for
one
>of his contemporary followers conveys a deep misunderstanding of the
>Mandala and its place within our faith.
>
>This new doctrine has its roots in Nichiren Sho Shu theology even
though
>it is being promoted by former Nichiren Sho Shu/SGI members who now
wish
>to compete with their old associations.
This 'new doctrine' has it's roots in Bruce's mind and nowhere else.
Nichiren Shoshu has nothing to do with this idea and never has and I
challenge you to show me any Nichiren Shoshu doctrine or guidance which
says it does.
MC
Paul
julian stephenson <julia...@clara.net> wrote:
>ly...@usa.net wrote:
>> An innocent question to everyone who is concerned:
>>
>> Why would you settle for any Gohonzon that was not inscribed by
>> Nichiren
>> himself if you've chosen to practice Nichiren's Buddhism,
>> especially since they are available?
>I am not sure how many there are, a hundred or so?, and they are not
>availableto take home.
>>
What confuses me is why Soka Gakkai chose to counterfeit a Nichikan
Shonin Gohonzon. Nichikan was the 26th High Priest of Nichiren Shoshu
- a totally different religion to SGI's Soka Sekai Shu, and he held
dear many doctrines that SGI now execrate.
Now that the SGI are saying that they have a direct connection to the
Daishonin, why didn't they counterfeit one of his Gohonzons ?.
Is it because nobody would lend Mr Ikeda one, long enough for him to
stick it in a photocopier. Can anyone explain ?
;~)- ex-karla/ex-noddy
delete "nospam." when e-mailing me.
johnpetry
Essentially Marc is correct. The Nichiren Shoshu came up with a
transubstantiated plank from which all other Gohonzon's flow, to put it
slightly poetically. This plank mandala is the work supposedly of
Nichiren Shonin and is used to perform the eye opening ceremoniesfor the
individual members' gonhonzon mandalas.
Bruce in his fevered desire to come up with some tactic to counter this
transubstantiated plank theory, came up with his "get a copy of an
authentic Nichiren Gohonzon" sales tactic. He had some valid criticism,
which was that certain changes had been made to the NST Gohonzon
mandalas and the supposed superiority of the plank was not supported by
the history or doctrine of Nichiren Buddhism. However, for reasons
known only to Bruce he went beyond that into this magical mystical rap
about having a copy of a Nichiren Inscribed Gohonzon mandala. This
unfortunately is also not supported by anything in Nichiren Buddhist
history or doctrine. But it does sound like a good sales tactic, if you
sell Amway.
Marc has pointed out the correct approach. I personally think it can't
be emphasized enough that the Gohonzon cannot be objectified. It is not
a thing. The second one starts making up distinctions like a
transubstantiated plank or mandalas personally inscribed by Nichiren are
the only valid ones, you objectify the Gohonzon, draw lines in the water
and twist the essential teachings of Nichiren Buddhism.
Okay, I'll get off the soap box now.
Mr T
In article <5pu23g$4...@bbcnews.rd.bbc.co.uk>, ipcr...@nospam.hotmail.com
(Paul ) wrote:
It was known that prior to nabbing the Nichikan Gohonzon from a temple of a
renegade priest (Ironically, that will revert back to Nichiren Shoshu after
that priest dies or gives up his position), Ikeda had been in discussion to
buy a Nichiren-inscribed honzon from Nichiren Shu.
This was their second choice, and immediately after sewing up the deal, the
SGI spinmeisters went to work constructing the elaborate rationale for
selling it to their membership- hence the "Nichikan, restorer of Buddhism"
title.
Kurt
--
To reply by E-mail, please delete the "nospam" before "primenet" on my address.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.primenet.com/~martman/TDG.html
http://www.primenet.com/~martman/renault/Caravelle.html
johnpetry
Mr T wrote:
> It was known that prior to nabbing the Nichikan Gohonzon from a temple of a
> renegade priest (Ironically, that will revert back to Nichiren Shoshu after
> that priest dies or gives up his position), Ikeda had been in discussion to
> buy a Nichiren-inscribed honzon from Nichiren Shu.
>
>
Kurt is correct on this. The chantmeister did approach the Nichiren Shu
about purchasing one of their authentic Nichiren inscribed Gohonzon
Mandalas. The Nichiren Shu told him, "no". So he had to come up with
an alternative.
It would have been amusing had he been allowed to purchase one however.
Just think of all the books that would have had to have been recalled
because of "typographical errors". He still faces the old lineage
dilemma however, even with the one he has. Hence the diatribes
concerning eye opening ceremonies. Most of the SGI folks here just
don't understand the dogma under which they have been operating for so
many years to understand why having a "disconnected" Nichiren Shoshu
gohonzon mandala is an issue. If he had gone with a Nichiren Gohonzon
Mandala purchased from the Nichiren Shu, it would have been a slightly
different problem but the same issue would have still been there vis a
vis the "validity of such a Gohonzon Mandala, disconnected as it were
from the plank at Taiseki-ji. So the SGI struggles in the middle,
slowly edging towards the position of the non-Taiseki-ji lineages. In
another year or so I expect that we will hear entirely different
arguments out of the SGI folks based upon yet another pamphlet as that
shift continues.
Shinsyou Koyama
If you chant Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was inscribed by Nichiren
himself, there is a value.
If you chant Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was inscribed by a
disciple of Nichiren , there is a value.
If you chant Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was copied of original
one, there is a value, too.
If you chant Odaimoku even with only your imagination of Gohonzon, also
there is a value.
It is consequential that the Gohonzon which was inscribed by Nichiren is
fortunate, but the feelings to think of the Gohonzon are extremely
important.
--
---- Namu Myoho Renge Kyo -------------------------------------
_/_/_/_/_/_/ Name: Shinsyou (Nobumasa) Koyama
_/_/_/_/_/_/ E-mail: mailto:shin...@ppp.bekkoame.or.jp
_/_/_/_/_/_/ WWW HomePage: http://www.bekkoame.or.jp/~shinsyou/
---- Gassho ---------------------------------------------------
Mr T
In article <5q5mf0$c...@bbcnews.rd.bbc.co.uk>, paul <ipcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Shinsyou Koyama" <shin...@ppp.bekkoame.or.jp> writes: > If you chant
Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was inscribed by Nichiren
> > himself, there is a value.
> >
> > If you chant Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was inscribed by a
> > disciple of Nichiren , there is a value.
> >
> > If you chant Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was copied of original
> > one, there is a value, too.
> >
> > If you chant Odaimoku even with only your imagination of Gohonzon, also
> > there is a value.
> >
> > It is consequential that the Gohonzon which was inscribed by Nichiren is
> > fortunate, but the feelings to think of the Gohonzon are extremely
> > important.
> >
>
> It seems that there are loads of people out there that think that Daimoku
> works by magic and that the Gohonzon gives benefits because of it's
superficial
> appearance. These views are heretical. Daimoku works because of the
compassion of the Buddha.
This person's server is familiar. It's the same one used by a "Crimes of
Nikken" web page. The "bone" one.
Kurt
--
To reply by E-mail, please delete the extra "m" before "martman" on my address.
johnpetry
paul wrote:
> It seems that there are loads of people out there that think that Daimoku
> works by magic and that the Gohonzon gives benefits because of it's superficial
> appearance. These views are heretical. Daimoku works because of the compassion of the Buddha.
> that leads us to Buddhahood it is our connection to the Buddha. If the Buddha
> does not "live" within the object of worship there is nothing for us to connect to.
> In fact we will lose benefit. That is why the Daishonin said that an object of worship
> that HASN'T had the Eye-Opening ceremony is like a masterless house occupied by a theif.
>
> Also bear in mind that if your religion denies the DaiGohonzon, you are going against the Daishonin's
> Buddhism and therefore can not attain Buddhahood (even if your Gohonzon is real & valid).
> This is no fault of the Gohonzon - the cause for avoiding contact with the Buddha lies with
> the practitioner.
The Nichiren Shoshu came up with a
transubstantiated plank from which all other Gohonzon's flow, to put it
slightly poetically. This plank mandala is the work supposedly of
Nichiren Shonin and is used to perform the eye opening ceremoniesfor the
individual members' gonhonzon mandalas. The plank mandala is not the
Buddha and that was not the position of the Nichiren Shoshu until the
1600's. The Daimoku isn't magic and the plank isn't transubstantiated.
MarcInMD
Also bear in mind that if your religion denies the DaiGohonzon, you are
going against the Daishonin's
Buddhism and therefore can not attain Buddhahood (even if your Gohonzon is
real & valid).
This is no fault of the Gohonzon - the cause for avoiding contact with the
Buddha lies with
Nearly a good post.
If there was even a little bit of evidence that the DaiGohonzon and the
rather complex theology that surrounds it had some connection to Nichiren,
more people would consider Nichiren Sho Shu. However the complete and
total lack of any historical tie to that particular Mandala connecting
it to either Nichiren or Nikko is a gap in logic that most people simply
cannot get past.
Your thoery has a nice religious ring to it but it depends on the
authenticity of an actual historical event. Since that event most likely
did not happen, the religious theory has no real value.
Marc
Rogowdoc
Noddy, you write:
>>>>>Also bear in mind that if your religion denies the DaiGohonzon, you
are going against the Daishonin's Buddhism and therefore can not attain
Buddhahood (even if your Gohonzon is real & valid). This is no fault of
the Gohonzon - the cause for avoiding contact with the Buddha lies with
the practitioner.>>>>>
The DaiGohonzon is a fake or Nichiren would have written about
it. It is that simple. Case closed.
Mark
Shinsyou Koyama
I am seeing that you always play an active part in a.r.b.n.
I feel that the posture to your missionary work is wonderful.
>
> >If you chant Odaimoku front of the Gohonzon which was copied of original
> >one, there is a value, too.
>
>
> Does that include a digital image of a Gohonzon
> on a computer such as the one that your group has
> on the internet?
>
Sorry, I don't have the answer.
But I say now what I thinking about.
The teaching of Buddhism is " equal " and also that the teaching of
Nichiren is " popularizes right Buddhism all over the world".
As for me, the undertaking and the denial can not make "a digital image of
a Gohonzon on a computer ".
It supposes that it became possible to communicate, exceeding speed of
light with the communication technique progressing.
If I requested to send a Gohonzon from the Andromeda big nebula, I will
send a " digital Gohonzon " without waiting 300000000000 years.
I'm not good at English. Do you understand my English?
Thank you.
Rogowdoc
Paul, you write:
>>>>>In the Goshos that heretical sects didn't burn, there are mentions of
the Daigohonzon.>>>>>
I'll take any reference by Nikko, or Nichimoku in their own
hand. Funny how nowhere in the hundreds of works by Nikko is the DaiBS
mentioned. Oh, I know, the heretical sects who preserve the Five Major
Writings of Nichiren burned nikko's and nichimoku's works too. I would
laugh if it wasn't so sick.
>>>>> This is very inconvenient to heretical sects (their
McBuddhism doesn't involve the Daigohonzon), so they claim that these
Gosho are either a)fake>>>>>
You are losing it Paul, I can refute this nonsense with what I learned in
logic 101. Why would someone refer to something that was
non-existent(burned) as a fake.There is no need. It just plain doesn't
exist. However, it not only doesn't exist but never exist. There was no
conspiracy against the DaiGohonzon because at the time that the Gosho were
supposed to have been burned, there was no DaiGohonzon. Also, the probable
historic account is that the Tientai priests did the burning of any
Gosho(if it happened at all on any large scale) and they were not partial
to any lineage.
>>>>>or b) refer to any "Great" Gohonzon - ie "The
dogma ate my homework"...>>>>>
Nearly EVERY Mandala Gohonzon, in the lower right hand corner is
written:
"This Dai Mandala that has never yet been revealed in the whole of
Jambudvipa for the more than 2,230 years after the Buddha's
Extinction."
ALL GOHONZONS ARE DAI-MANDALAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW who is the "Buddha" in the phrase, "after the Buddha's
Extinction." Dainichi, Amida, Yakushi? Or maybe you think he is referring
to himself.
Case reopened>>>>>
Case closed and and remanded to the cult police to lock up anyone
who still believes in one super Daigohonzon that supercedes all other
Gohonzons.
Mark
Kenneth W. Burchell
In article <19970714151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
marc...@aol.com (MarcInMD) wrote:
> >>Please provide contemporary proof that it was installed in the 1600's.
> Otherwise, please withdraw this ludicrous claim.<<<
>
> There are several reasons why we know that this is so. First, there is
> no mention of the "Dai-Gohonzon" from an authenticated primary source
Oh this IS amusing........defintion of "authenticated Primary
source"obviously being any one which agrees with his position. Haven't we
been over this ground before???
> (Nichiren, Nikko etc) before this. Not only that, but there is also no
> secondary sources that ever mention any knowledge of this Madala (Toki
> Jonin, Shigo Kingo nor by any priest or layman famous or obscure)
Does Nichiren Daishonin count????
It is
> incredibly difficult to believe that no one anywhere would have ever
> mentioned this central Mandala, even causually..
You're right. Nichiren DID mention it. And Nichiren Shoshu preserved and
cherished it while your own founders abandoned what their arrogance would
not let them comprehend.
> The best contemporary evidence that I know about from the 1600s is the
> letter written by the Abbot of Honmonji Kityamma who was shocked and
> surprised when Taisekiji announced (apparently for the first time) that
> they had a be all and end all Mandala from Nichiren.
Surprise. Surprise. The letter is from an enemy of Nichiren Shoshu.
Honmonji was the head
> temple of Nikko's branch of Buddhism back then and is located not much
> more than a mile away from Taisekiji.
No, Honmonji CLAIMED to be the head of Nikko's school. Nikko faithfully
followed Nichiren's teachings and founded Nichiren Shoshu which to this
very day carries out those teachings and practices which Nichiren gave
Nikko.
> .................. I understand that Mr. Graham Lamont is going
> to translate it in the near future giving the various scholarly
> attributions and explainations as to verification of autheticity (which
> catalouge it can be found in and when it was first noted, etc) and more
> details surrounding it (who what where when etc).
>
> Marc Strumpf
Well, that's a relief! An unbiased translator!! ;)
--
Ken Burchell
For more information on Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism:
http://www.primenet.com/~martman/ns.html
http://vanbc.wimsey.com/~glenz/nikken.html
http://www.angelfire.com/nd/NST/index.html
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/jqpublic/NShoshu1.html
For info on Thomas Paine:
http://www.mediapro.net/cdadesign/paine
To reply by e-mail remove "nimrod" from the address above. Hope this eliminates some of the JUNK MAIL SPAM that loads my mailbox virtually every day ;)
Shinsyou Koyama
Craig <jqpu...@spamjam.netnitco.net> wrote in article
<33c8f0eb...@news.netnitco.net>...
> On 13 Jul 1997 12:14:31 GMT, "Shinsyou Koyama"
<shin...@ppp.bekkoame.or.jp> wrote:
>
> >If I requested to send a Gohonzon from the Andromeda big nebula, I will
> >send a " digital Gohonzon " without waiting 300000000000 years.
>
> Sorry Revvvv...
It is honorable that you call me "Rev". Or, is there another meaning in
"Revvvv"?
> The Gohonzon was bestowed upon the enire world-
> not for the Andromeda strain...
>
> The fact is that your group is already sending digital images
> all over the Earth where there are Gohonzons to be aquired
> locally.
There is no fact that Nichiren Shu sent a Gohonzon of the digital image
formal.
Of course, we haven't sent to Andromada yet, too.
> You never did anser my question:
> Can a digital image on the internet contain the Law?
I have answered before, as "Sorry, I don't have the answer".
> If so, what happens if somebody accidentally pushes
> the "delete" button? Dioes he go to hell for destroying
> the Law, or is everything forgiven once he scans in a new one?
We must handle Gohonzon importantly.
If you sometimes damage Gohonzon, you should shrive.
If you are the really ascetic of the Lotus Sutra, you can approach the
Buddhahood step by step.
I have never got your opinion of the "digital image Gohonzon".
johnpetry
Paul wrote:
>
> johnpetry <jonp...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >The Nichiren Shoshu came up with a
> >transubstantiated plank from which all other Gohonzon's flow, to put it
> >slightly poetically. This plank mandala is the work supposedly of
> >Nichiren Shonin and is used to perform the eye opening ceremoniesfor the
> >individual members' gonhonzon mandalas. The plank mandala is not the
> >Buddha and that was not the position of the Nichiren Shoshu until the
> >1600's. The Daimoku isn't magic and the plank isn't transubstantiated.
>
> Otherwise, please withdraw this ludicrous claim.
>
> delete "nospam." when e-mailing me.
I suggest that you start with the Kansho Accords which were written in
the late 1400's or early 1500's. This was a meeting between all of the
Nichiren schools including Taiseki-ji. The Hokke Shu was under attack
from both the civil government as well as the Nembutsu and the Tendai
sects. Basically the accord lists all areas of common agreement as well
as those areas upon which they simply agreed that they could not agree
and would have to respect each other opinion. They also petitioned the
Emperor to be relieved of a decree promulgated by the Regent. The
Emperor had one of his people write a report on the Hokke Shu. That
document listed the essential beliefs of all the schools of the Hokke
Shu. There is no mention of any transubstantiated plank or "Nichiren is
the true Buddha" nonsense.
There is some evidence that the plank as such came into existence
initially around the 1500's but only as an artifact supposedly inscribed
by Nichiren. Since Taiseki-ji was a back water temple with no
connection to Nichiren's life and had no genuine artifacts of Nichiren
himself, all the good pilgrim money was going to other locations. This
suddenly discovered plank mandala became a good source of tourist yen,
kind of along the line of the shroud of turin. It wasn't until later in
the 1600's that this transubstantiation theory was advanced.
johnpetry
Kenneth W. Burchell wrote:
>
> In article <19970714151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> marc...@aol.com (MarcInMD) wrote:
>
> > Otherwise, please withdraw this ludicrous claim.<<<
> >
> > no mention of the "Dai-Gohonzon" from an authenticated primary source
>
> Oh this IS amusing........defintion of "authenticated Primary
> source"obviously being any one which agrees with his position. Haven't we
> been over this ground before???
>
> > (Nichiren, Nikko etc) before this. Not only that, but there is also no
> > secondary sources that ever mention any knowledge of this Madala (Toki
> > Jonin, Shigo Kingo nor by any priest or layman famous or obscure)
>
> Does Nichiren Daishonin count????
>
> It is
> > incredibly difficult to believe that no one anywhere would have ever
> > mentioned this central Mandala, even causually..
>
> You're right. Nichiren DID mention it. And Nichiren Shoshu preserved and
> cherished it while your own founders abandoned what their arrogance would
> not let them comprehend.
>
those silly copies of copies of copies of transfer papers I hope!
MarcInMD
I suggest that you start with the Kansho Accords which were written in
the late 1400's or early 1500's. This was a meeting between all of the
Nichiren schools including Taiseki-ji. The Hokke Shu was under attack
from both the civil government as well as the Nembutsu and the Tendai
sects. Basically the accord lists all areas of common agreement as well
as those areas upon which they simply agreed that they could not agree
and would have to respect each other opinion. They also petitioned the
Emperor to be relieved of a decree promulgated by the Regent. The
Emperor had one of his people write a report on the Hokke Shu. That
document listed the essential beliefs of all the schools of the Hokke
Shu. There is no mention of any transubstantiated plank or "Nichiren is
the true Buddha" nonsense.
There is some evidence that the plank as such came into existence
initially around the 1500's but only as an artifact supposedly inscribed
by Nichiren. Since Taiseki-ji was a back water temple with no
connection to Nichiren's life and had no genuine artifacts of Nichiren
himself, all the good pilgrim money was going to other locations. This
suddenly discovered plank mandala became a good source of tourist yen,
kind of along the line of the shroud of turin. It wasn't until later in
the 1600's that this transubstantiation theory was advanced.<<<
Well done Petry ! Who says you can't learn anything on the arbn?
I would like to learn more about these accords and how the various sects
listed their doctrines. Please email me any info. you may have on where
this document can be found.
Marc
Bruce Maltz
johnpetry wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > johnpetry <jonp...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> > >The Nichiren Shoshu came up with a
> > >transubstantiated plank from which all other Gohonzon's flow, to
> put it
> > >slightly poetically. This plank mandala is the work supposedly
> of
> > >Nichiren Shonin and is used to perform the eye opening
> ceremoniesfor the
> > >individual members' gonhonzon mandalas. The plank mandala is not
> the
> > >Buddha and that was not the position of the Nichiren Shoshu until
> the
> > >1600's. The Daimoku isn't magic and the plank isn't
> transubstantiated.
> >
> > Please provide contemporary proof that it was installed in the
> 1600's.
> > Otherwise, please withdraw this ludicrous claim.
> >
> > ;~)- ex-karla/ex-noddy
> > delete "nospam." when e-mailing me.
>
Did you steal this from Lamont? or Rev. Matsuda?
Or did McCormick write it for you and leave off the
"I hate Nichiren" sections,
Certainly, you did not write this by yourself.
Bruce
Rogowdoc
Ken, you write:
>>>>>In the Jogyo Shoden-sho, written by Nichiren in 1282......>>>>>
You make all the people you call liars here look like honest Abe
Lincoln. No one alive outside of your tiny little distorted sect believes
Nichiren wrote this. LOL
Mark
ke...@nidlink.com
In article <19970716012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Sticks and stones.......is that the best you can do, Mark?
See, people......that's the way this person and the so-called school of
Buddhism he represents works. Anything that disagrees with his viewpoint
is labeled a FORGERY or is slandered by him. Hell, his predecessors were
so freaked out by Nichirens teachings that they burned and destroyed as
many as they could lay their claws on. Now they continue to try to cover
up their tracks and when they cannot respond honorable.......they
slander. How pitiful.
Ken Burchell
A believer in:
Nichiren's True Buddhism: http://www.primenet.com/~martman/ns.html
ke...@nidlink.com
> snip < the usual bs from "Forgery Experts-r-Us, Inc" >snip<
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 enscribed. The Kaidan-in Honzon
is referred to in Nichiren Shoshu as the DaiGohonzon.
Biography of Nippo:
"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, Fuji 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 (for instance) recognizes that Nippo
carved them. Incidentally, if the three statues were made of camphor,
then the argument that camphor was not "readily
available" in the Minobu area is also false.
Now, 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 is meant by "accurately
described"?
The DaiGohonzon has an unusual shape. :
What is that shape?
Answer: Nippo honed only one side -- the front.
The back is ROUNDED.
All of the speculation and allegations about the
DaiGohonzon, based on an alleged photograph of the front
of the DaiGohonzon, and even Nichijo's alleged allegations,
are unfounded because not one person in modern history outside of Nichiren
Shoshu, not
even Nichijo of Kitayama Honmonji, has ever seen the
DaiGohonzon up close, much less examined or measured it. If
they had, they would have known it's peculiar shape.
Those who attack the DaiGohonzon on this newsgroup are dealing from an
incomplete deck. They truly lack accurate information on this issue and
speak from a prejudiced viewpoint that ignores the evidence as well as
the testimony preserved from documents that their own predecessors
attempted to destroy thru burning and other destructive acts.
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." Fuji Seiten, 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 (the 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" Nichiren Shoshu
Seiten, pgs. 658-660
Further:
1. Nichiren entrusted the Shishinden Gohonzon, the Gohonzon
Nichiren enscribed for the Emperor of Japan when he converted
to True Buddhism, to Nikko, and not to any of the other
disciples. Why didn't Nichiren entrust it to any of the other
disciples? Because, they didn't inherit the lineage of true
Buddhism. The Shishinden Gohonzon is stored at Taisekiji.
Please note:
Daibyaku-ho
April 16, 1995
Airing of the Scrolls Ceremony
H.P. Nikken Shonin
Third paragraph:
"The "Airing of the Scrolls Ceremony", needless to say, is one of the
two most important ceremonies of Nichiren Shoshu. Among the ceremonies
that will be conducted, firstly, is the ceremony of the airing of the
entity of DaiGohonzon of the High Sanctuary of the Original Teachings,
the DaiGohonzon that the Founder, the Daishonin, instilled his spirit
into, the spirit of the Original Buddha of Kuon Ganjo (time without
begining or end), with sumi ink, and revealed; secondly, the airing
of the Gohonzon that is referred to as the Shishinden-no-Gohonzon
(Note: This is the Gohonzon that Nichiren enscribed for the Emperor
of Japan to worship when he converts to True Buddhism, i.e., Nichiren
Shoshu), that contains deep significance for Kosen Rufu, and that was
transmitted from the master to the disciple when it was enscribed in
the third month and third year of Koan (1280); thirdly, the airing of
the other original Gohonzons of the Daishonin, and the airing of the
scrolls."
2. Nichiren entrusted the two Gohonzons known as the Mannen Kyugo
Gohonzons, the Gohonzons for saving the people for the Ten Thousand
Years of Mappo, to Nikko, and not to any of the other disciples.
Why didn't Nichiren entrust them to any of the other disciples?
Because, they didn't receive the heritage of the Law. One of these
is enshrined at Myorenji Temple. (See Myokyo, no. 17, pg. 33)
The other is enshrined at Hota Myohonji. (See, Dainichiren, no.
548, pgs. 12-66)
3. Nichiren entrusted the Kaidan-in Honzon, the Gohonzon to be
enshrined in the "Kaidan" for saving all of the people of Ichi'en
Budai, the whole world, to Nikko, and not to any of the other
disciples. Why didn't Nichiren entrust it to any of the other
disciples? Because, they didn't inherit the lineage of the Law.
This Gohonzon is enshrined at Taisekiji.
4. Nichiren didn't entrust any Gohonzons, for the sake of the people
in the future, to any of the other disciples. Why didn't he?
Because, they didn't inherit the lineage of the Daishonin's Buddhism.
5. Nichiren had Nikko enscribe Gohonzons for Nichiren, after which,
Nichiren signed them. One such Gohonzon is at Sendai Butsugenji
Temple storehouse, and was enscribed in the fifth year of Bun'ei
(1268); (See, Fuji Shugaku Yoshu Shiryo Ruishu, pg. 275.) Nichiren
did not have any of the other disciples enscribe Gohonzons for him.
Why didn't he? Because, they were not to inherit the lineage of the
True Law from Nichiren.
6. There was no dispute of the transfer of the lineage from Nichiren to
Nikko until after the appearance of the bogus Nichirou transfer document.
The bogus Nichirou transfer document appeared to dispute the original
transfer document from Nichiren to Nikko. If there was no original
transfer document to Nikko, the bogus Nichirou transfer document would
never have been crafted to dispute the transfer document to Nikko. The
first person to produce the Nichirou Transfer document was Nisshu, the
fifth chief priest of Honryuji Temple. There were no corroborating
records of it. And, NICHIREN SHU HAS ALREADY ADMITTED AND PUBLISHED IN
THEIR ORGAN NEWSPAPER (Shuumon Kaizou) THAT NICHIROU'S TRANSFER DOCUMENT
WAS A FORGERY. (Nichiren Shoshu Soka Gakkai Hihan wo Hasu, pg. 41)
Nikko Shonin wrote about his receiving the lineage and he wrote about
the transfer documents (Nichiren Shoshu Seiten, pgs. 614-615). Further
proof that the two transfer documents existed is found in the writing
of Nichigen-shi, of Myorenji temple, who, 99 years after the Daishonin
passed away, wrote on the slander of the five senior priests of Minobu
in his document, "Go-nin-sho-ha-shaku-shou-ken-mon (Refutation of the
the five senior priests, what I have seen and heard)." In this document
he provides evidence of the two original transfer documents' existence
and their having Nichiren's "Flower Seal/signature" on them (Fuji
Shugaku Yoshu, vol. 4, pg. 8). Additionally, there are original copies
of the two transfer documents at Kitayama (Omosu) Honmonji, Nishiyama
Honmonji, Koizumi Kuonji, Hota Myohonji, and Taisekiji.
Further, there is ample historical evidence that indicates the Takeda
clan overran Nishiyama Honmon-ji, in 1573 and stole them, and other
"treasures", as indicated by the following:
"Interesting enough, it was in 1573 during a conflict between Kitayama
Hommon-ji and Nishiyama Hommon-ji Temples that Takeda Shingen's son
Takeda Katsuyori caused the loss of the original manuscripts of the two
transfer documents which name Nikko as Nichiren's successor. Also It
had seemed as though the Takeda clan would have gone on to rule all of
Japan, arrogance and misfortune sent the entire clan in to oblivion.
Katsuyori's father seems to have had great respect for Minobu Sect, but
hated Taisekiji, as demonstrated in his occassional burnings of the
buildings on Temple grounds and admonishments of the priests."
7. Why did Nichiren sign his name on the right side of the Gohonzon
and place his seal on the left side when he first began to enscribe
Gohonzons? Yet, from 1279, the second year of Koan, why did Nichiren
suddenly start signing his name with his seal directly on top of his
name, directly below the Daimoku? Did he just decide he liked it
there? Or, was there a special reason? According to Nikken Shonin,
the former head of the study department of Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren
indicated his provisional identity as Jogyo Bosatsu by signing his
name on the right side of the Gohonzon and placing his seal on the
left. From 1279, by signing his name and placing his seal directly
over his name, directly below the Daimoku, he indicated his true
identity as the Original Buddha.
In the writing, "Seven Articles on the Gohonzon passed from Master
to Disciple", Nichiren states:
"The dharma realm is Nichiren and Nichiren is the Dharma realm.
This position (on the Gohonzon of the characters for "Nichiren")
is Myo [Mystic], the embodiment of the Lotus Flower of Soku Shin
Jo Butsu (attaining enlightenment as you are), the unchanging
immutable Original Buddha [hon-butsu]... Nichiren's shadow, is
now the DaiMandara. ... Signed Nichiren, Koan 5 (1282), Tenth
Month, Tenth Day" Showa Shintei, page 2721-2722
The first Gohonzon that Nichiren signed this way was also the first
Gohonzon that Nichiren included the name of "Daibadatta", which
indicates the last and lowest of the ten worlds, and was the first
complete depiction on Nichiren's Gohonzon of the ten worlds.
It was bestowed on Nichimoku. It was also this year that Nichiren
stated he finally fulfilled the purpose of his advent, which he said,
took him twenty-seven years to complete. And it was this year he
enscribed the Kaidan-in Honzon (Honmon Kaidan DaiGohonzon).
8. Why did no one outside of Nichiren Shoshu ever know that the
Kaidan-in Honzon (Honmon Kaidan DaiGohonzon) was hewn and
honed on the front, only, and had a rounded, un-hewn back? Because,
no one outside of Nichiren Shoshu had ever seen it; much less,
examined it.
These people simply will not realize that they are attacking the true
purpose of Nichiren's mission.....the DaiGohonzon of the High Sanctuary
of True Buddhism. If you haven't seen it and chanted to it, you have no
idea what Nichiren was all about.
Ken Burchell
A believer in:
Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism and the DaiGohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin
White Lotus
Bruce Maltz wrote to John Petry:
> Did you steal this from Lamont? or Rev. Matsuda?
> Or did McCormick write it for you and leave off the
> "I hate Nichiren" sections,
> Certainly, you did not write this by yourself.
> Bruce
The unfortunate aspect of Bruce is that he lives in the Realm of Hell. His
actions are the clear and consistent proof of his life condition. He has
to fight with everyone, no matter what. Even those who agree with things
he does. Even members of his own sangha, the KHK, who disagree with him
get their posts censured and are shunned. Rogue-O, Bruce's enforcer, wrote
that differing opinions are not welcome on their KHK email list. Does this
sound familiar? It sure meets the qualifications for a cult, if you only
surround yourself with those who agree with you and do not tolerate
differing opinions.
Look at this post as an example, a very good and well documented article on
the forged Ita Mandala, which is one of Bruce's favorite subjects. Rather
than acknowledging the fine work he can't help himself and condemns it. At
the least he could have simply remained silent. Now by his actions he
erodes the cause of all of us who strive to bring to light the wrong
teachings of Taisekiji. Thanks Bruce, with you as a friend who needs
enemies! You certainly serve the priests of Taisekiji well.
More proof that simply chanting the Odaimoku to an "approved" mandala isn't
a magic formula. What is in your heart and your intent is the deciding
criteria for the efficacy of a religious practice.
Mark Herrick
ke...@nidlink.com
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:40:39 -0700, johnpetry <jonp...@slip.net> wrote:
> I am sorry Ken but where exactly did Nichiren mention this plank? Not
> those silly copies of copies of copies of transfer papers I hope!
If this is a double-post to you, please forgive me.......just didn't want to ignore your response.
> > incredibly difficult to believe that no one anywhere would have ever
> > mentioned this central Mandala, even causually..
The materials above should more than justify bestowal of the gold star you sarcastically promised. Further, you should now convert if you have any honor at all.
Marc stated:
> > temple of Nikko's branch of Buddhism back then and is located not much
> > more than a mile away from Taisekiji.
> followed Nichiren's teachings and founded Nichiren Shoshu which to this
> very day carries out those teachings and practices which Nichiren gave
> Nikko.<<
Ken Burchell
Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism is at http://www.primenet.com/~martman/ns.html
To reply by e-mail, just remove "nimrod" from the return address posted above.
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
johnpetry
ke...@nidlink.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:40:39 -0700, johnpetry <jonp...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> > I am sorry Ken but where exactly did Nichiren mention this plank? Not
>
> > those silly copies of copies of copies of transfer papers I hope!
>
> John, don't worry. There's ample documentation. Please forgive me for duplicating work already posted in response to Marc, but here is some material for you to digest. There's more :)
>
>
[snipped for bandwidth]
Thanks for the courtesy of your reply Ken. I'll refer you to my
response given under the post above. However, this appears to be stuff
you have downloaded from the ayrehead. Please understand that he often
states half truths and opinion as fact. For example, the Nichiren Shu
scholars who have examined the issue of the so called "transfer
documents" regardless of which set you are referring to, have conbcluded
that they are fakes written later by different factions in support of
their various claims. The same is true for all those so called oral
teachings regardless of which ones you are referring to of the two.
Bruce Maltz
White Lotus wrote:
> The unfortunate aspect of Bruce is that he lives in the Realm of
> Hell. His
>
I live in Oregon.
> get their posts censured and are shunned. Rogue-O, Bruce's
> enforcer, wrotethat differing opinions are not welcome on their KHK
> email list. Does this sound familiar? It sure meets the
> qualifications for a cult, if you only
How stupid are you trying to become. The KHK list is a KHK Party,NBF
heretics are not welcome, the NBF believers are not welcome,
NBF policitcs are not welcome. Is this our decision, NO...
it is from the Honorable Reverend Tetsujo Kubota,
who knows you and Strumpf, and Lamont very very well.
He announced this in Los Angeles last year.
You might want to be a party crasher, and your boosom buddy Strumpf
gets our info somehow, spending time on that instead of his family,
but everyone has access to this open forum on ARBN.
Big Question: I have been told that the NBF was started as an
alternative to the ARBN, yet you still read and post here!
> teachings of Taisekiji. Thanks Bruce, with you as a friend who
> needs
> enemies! You certainly serve the priests of Taisekiji well.
>
I continue without missing a heart beat to bring people to the
Sutra,while you NBFers just sit around scratching your Ba**s and
criticizing everyone,
that has fiath in Nichiren's doctrine.
With Gassho,
Bruce Maltz
White Lotus
Oh please Bruce,
You completely fail to address the real issue, which is that you can't help
but attack everyone, even those who agree with you. John Petry wrote a
very good article on the Kansho Accords to address a sincere question. You
may not agree with everything John P writes, or even like him, but
certainly you should avoid attacking an article that so eloquently supports
one of your pet issues. Your behavior only indicates to everyone how angry
and unhappy you are, and that the only thing you care about is fighting
with everyone.
> I continue without missing a heart beat to bring people to the
> Sutra,while you NBFers just sit around scratching your Ba**s and
> criticizing everyone,
> that has fiath in Nichiren's doctrine.
The NBF has strict rules about personal attacks and criticism. We don't
"sit around... (expletive delted)... criticising everyone." If anyone
posts such statements thay are asked to stop. Sorry, Bruce another fact
you have twisted. The KHK list is the one that spouts all the fire and
brimstone nonsense and the constant personal attacks on all non-KHK
believers. You can attack the NBF all you want to, but the reality is
that the NBF is trying to build an American Nichiren Sangha. All you do is
tear everything and everyone down.
Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.
Mark Herrick
ke...@nidlink.com
On 16 Jul 1997 01:25:14 GMT, rogo...@aol.com (Rogowdoc) wrote:
> Ken, you write:
>
> >>>>>In the Jogyo Shoden-sho, written by Nichiren in 1282......>>>>>
>
> You make all the people you call liars here look like honest Abe
> Lincoln. No one alive outside of your tiny little distorted sect believes
> Nichiren wrote this. LOL
>
> Mark
Ken
johnpetry
Bruce Maltz wrote:
>
> White Lotus wrote:
>
> > The unfortunate aspect of Bruce is that he lives in the Realm of
> > Hell. His
> >
>
> I live in Oregon.
>
You figure out which is which.
> > get their posts censured and are shunned. Rogue-O, Bruce's
> > enforcer, wrotethat differing opinions are not welcome on their KHK
> > email list. Does this sound familiar? It sure meets the
> > qualifications for a cult, if you only
>
> How stupid are you trying to become. The KHK list is a KHK Party,NBF
> heretics are not welcome, the NBF believers are not welcome,
> NBF policitcs are not welcome. Is this our decision, NO...
> it is from the Honorable Reverend Tetsujo Kubota,
> who knows you and Strumpf, and Lamont very very well.
> He announced this in Los Angeles last year.
> You might want to be a party crasher, and your boosom buddy Strumpf
> gets our info somehow, spending time on that instead of his family,
> but everyone has access to this open forum on ARBN.
I really find this amusing Brucie. You cut a number of people off long
before that simply because they had the nerve to disagree with you.
That includes me. You are the one who added me to the KHK group without
any mention of being a KHK member. You even used some of my posts as
examples when I defended the Kempon Hokke Shu against all the lies and
baloney the Rubyshus were tossing around last year. As for access to
your group, you would be amazed at the number of members of your snagha
with whom I carry on a regular correspondence. I received multiple
copies of the attacks your little minion Bonnie recently made. Attacks
which of course I couldn't respond to in your little star chamber. BTW
I think that little group of diatribes cost you alot. Too many people
know Mark or myself or Michael to believe the nonsense you posted or had
one of your tame members post.
>
> Big Question: I have been told that the NBF was started as an
> alternative to the ARBN, yet you still read and post here!
The same is true of the KHK board but then again we don't fake messages
from priests telling nbf participants not to read arbn, thereby
isolating them. Wouldn't work anyway, nbf members tend towards anarchy
anyway. Not that you would know cuz we won't let you on. Oh I forgot
you have your spys as well.
>
> > teachings of Taisekiji. Thanks Bruce, with you as a friend who
> > needs
> > enemies! You certainly serve the priests of Taisekiji well.
> >
>
> I continue without missing a heart beat to bring people to the
> Sutra,while you NBFers just sit around scratching your Ba**s and
> criticizing everyone,
> that has fiath in Nichiren's doctrine.
>
Brucie! What's fiath? Regarding the nbf board, the reason we won't let
you on is because you consistently vilate the two cardinal rules of the
board, no personal attacks on posters and no slamming everyone else's
sect while spamming praise about your own. Which isn't to say we don't
get into doctrinal issues from time to time. We just have discussions
and debates. Not spamming contests.
Kenneth W. Burchell
In article <19970716201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
marc...@aol.com (MarcInMD) wrote:
> If you say that they are authentic then it is up to
> you to show that authenticity. Lay your foundation. <<<
>
> Jon replied very well (above). I was also going to say that their is no
> early record of the documents Ken claims validate the DG. It is no
> ccincidence that NSS has not been able to get support for their claims
> from any independent historian or scholar. If they have one, I would like
> to know who he or she is. The transferr documents and the new Nippo Story
> fly in the face of the authentic documents from that time and as Petry has
> pointed out, did not appear till much later. I guess they were put away
> for 'safe keeping' for a few centuries , just like the DG supposidly was.
> Once again I want to point out a part of this that I find most
> convinceing. There is no side 'chat' about the DG. Where is all the email?
> Even if the next generation all turned against Nichiren's foundest wishes
> as NSS claims, it is unfathomable that not a single letter discussing this
> turning away from Nichiren and his central Mandala exits.
>
> From: Nissho
> to: T. Jonin
> Subject: Dai-Honzon
>
> Dear Toki,
>
> You know that wooden Mandala that our Master Nichren inscribed for all
> mankind and is the central and most important Gohonzon of our faith?
>
> Lets just skip it.
>
> What da ya say?
>
> N.
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> From: Toki Jonin
> To: Nissho Shonin
> Subject: Re: Dai-Honzon
>
>
> Dear N.
>
> Hows it going?
>
> Yeah sure. Lets pretend it never existed. I never really liked
> Nichiren in the first place. Lets all go over to Tendai now that he is
> dead.
>
>
> Your pal,
>
> Toki
So there it is, people. They ask for documentation. They get it.
It doesn't agree with their "facts" so they mock it.
The DaiGohonzn is real. It was the purpose of Nichiren's mission in life.
I have seen it.......and I experience it every day of my life since I took
faith in Nichiren's True Buddhism. These people will never admit its
authenticity because, if they do, the whole edifice of their practice
(which is based on a negative - opposition to the DaiGohonzon) will
collapse.
Want to learn more?
Go visit - http://www.mediapro.net/~martman/ns.html
signed,
Ken
MarcInMD
They ask for documentation. They get it.<<
I guess I must have missed the documentation part. The documents you
quoted do not hold up under rigorous scruntiny and that is a fact.
Please, give us the how, wha,t where, when and why these documets can be
considered authentic and you will have completely defeated us. What is
required (and I certainly do not expect you to have this kind of
information at your finger tips) is one single expert with a known
reputation that is willing to check off on the authenticity of the DG's
pedagree documents.Just name one and tell us how he or she can be
contacted so we can hear how it is possible for them to be authentic. It
is my understanding that there is 100% agreement that they are
manufactured for the sake on people like you, who do not chose to ask the
really hard questions, the really adult questions, the really reveiling
questions.
If you cannot come up with this or don't know how to go about it, we can
start a big arbn project. I don't think that it would take more than five
hundred dollars to pay the fee of a working expert in Nichiren Buddhism
like Laurel Rodd or Jeffery Hunter..you know someone with real
credentials, with academic standing and who is published, and with no
Sectarian ties at all, to write out for us a complete analysis of the
history of those documents you refer to and explain in detail why or why
not they can be relied upon. We can then set up a cheap web site and post
up the essay. Just five people contributing $100 each would do it, or two
at $250.
MarcInMD
These people will never admit its
authenticity because, if they do, the whole edifice of their practice
(which is based on a negative - opposition to the DaiGohonzon) will
collapse.<<<
Actually ,opposition the "Dai-Gonozon" is only a hobby.
Bruce Maltz
MarcInMD wrote:
> > .................. I understand that Mr. Graham Lamont is going
> > to translate it in the near future giving the various scholarly
> > attributions and explainations as to verification of autheticity
> (which
> > catalouge it can be found in and when it was first noted, etc) and
> more
> > details surrounding it (who what where when etc).
HA HA HA HA RIGHT HA HA HA
DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH HA HA HA
FUR SURE
TOTALLY
RIGHT ON DUDE....
We were supposed to have a book from Lamont on April of 1995,
but you and Lamont Blackmailed Rev. Kubota with the translations,
I'll post herricks note again if I have to, to this day the book is
not out,
Rev. Kubota is so disgusted with both of you, imagine a family man
with a wife and kids in Maryland, and an old fart in California
Blackmailing a sweet old man of 78 yrs!
I hope you are very proud of yourself.
Bruce
ke...@nidlink.com
In article <19970717024...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
marc...@aol.com (MarcInMD) wrote:
>
> They ask for documentation. They get it.<<
>
> I guess I must have missed the documentation part. The documents you
> quoted do not hold up under rigorous scruntiny and that is a fact.
>
> Please, give us the how, wha,t where, when and why these documets can be
> snip < the usual bs from "Forgery Experts-r-Us, Inc" >snip<
Marc, I guess you DID miss the documentation part. Read a little closer
and a little further down in the text....and carefully. The only thing I
DIDN"T document is the "authentication of origin" of the Jogyo
Shoden-Sho. That ain't my job, bucko. If you doubt it, its up to YOU to
do whatever you think it takes to disprove it. Read a little closer
though, especially the portions regarding the authenticity of Nikko's
signature, the items written in Nikko's own hand, then consider
converting.....you'll be welcomed with respect and dignity.
Biography of Nippo:
area is also false. Get it? The wood was found having floated down the
river at flood. The whole argument about camphor not growing around
Minobu is falacious, specious and lame.
Now, for all the talk about the DaiGohonzon being a plank of wood, etc.,
etc., why, among all the "experts" (these scoffers at the DaiGohonzon),
has NOT ONE PERSON accurately described the DaiGohonzon? Not Maltz, no
Marc, not Petry, not Stephanie, NO ONE! What is meant by "accurately
described"?
The DaiGohonzon has an unusual shape. :
What is that shape?
Answer: Nippo honed only one side -- the front.
The back is ROUNDED.
All of the speculation and allegations about the
DaiGohonzon, based on an alleged photograph of the front
of the DaiGohonzon, and even Nichijo's alleged allegations,
are unfounded because not one person in modern history outside of Nichiren
Shoshu, not
even Nichijo of Kitayama Honmonji, has ever seen the
DaiGohonzon up close, much less examined or measured it. If
they had, they would have known it's peculiar shape.
Those who attack the DaiGohonzon on this newsgroup are dealing from an
incomplete deck. They truly lack accurate information on this issue and
speak from a prejudiced viewpoint that ignores the evidence as well as
the testimony preserved from documents that their own predecessors
attempted to destroy thru burning and other destructive acts.
Nikko Shonin stated IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING in the
Further:
Daibyaku-ho
April 16, 1995
Third paragraph:
These people simply will not realize that they are attacking the true
ke...@nidlink.com
In article <33CCED...@slip.net>,
jonp...@slip.net wrote:
>
>
> ke...@nidlink.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:40:39 -0700, johnpetry <jonp...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I am sorry Ken but where exactly did Nichiren mention this plank? Not
> >
> > > those silly copies of copies of copies of transfer papers I hope!
> >
> > John, don't worry. There's ample documentation. Please forgive me for duplicating work already posted in response to Marc, but here is some material for you to digest. There's more :)
> >
> >
> [snipped for bandwidth]
>
> Thanks for the courtesy of your reply Ken. I'll refer you to my
> response given under the post above. However, this appears to be stuff
> you have downloaded from the ayrehead. Please understand that he often
> states half truths and opinion as fact. For example, the Nichiren Shu
(Well Jon, you said it. Nichiren Shu. Hardly objective, non-prejudiced
sources don't you think.)
> scholars who have examined the issue of the so called "transfer
> documents" regardless of which set you are referring to, have conbcluded
> that they are fakes written later by different factions in support of
> their various claims. The same is true for all those so called oral
> teachings regardless of which ones you are referring to of the two.
Jon, your logic is faulty and inadequate.
First, your appeal to "Nichiren Shu scholars" is tranparently prejudiced.
Second, because Ayers may or may not have used some of this material does
not mean it is therefore all false. After all, he quotes the Lotus Sutra
as well and I believe you, as I do, revere it. Your argument is clearly
an appeal to "guilt by association" or some such thing.
Check the references. I have. You'll find them solid.
For the record. I find Ayers nauseating and demonstrably sick in the head
and heart. I have previously and repeatedly stated so. Further, I don't
believe he can document membership in the Hokkeko of Nichiren Shoshu or
direct membership of any temple that I know of. If you will refrain from
associating him with me, I will refrain from associating you with the
many vile scum that I could invent in a minute's notice (whether of not
they CLAIM affiliation with your practice).
To repeat what I just posted in another thread to Marc, the ONLY item I
have NOT provided "documention of origin" on is the "Jogyo Shoden Sho". I
freely admit that. However, I have cited several items in Nikko's hand,
items authenticated by experts on all sides, and items (uses against my
school in this newsgroup) declared forgeries by your own cited "Nichiren
Shu scholars". Care to respond?
Ken
ke...@nidlink.com
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:58:27 -0700, Stephanie Maltz <fuju...@cris.com> wrote:
> ke...@nidlink.com wrote:
>
> > Buddhism he represents works. Anything that disagrees with his
> > viewpoint
> > is labeled a FORGERY or is slandered by him. Hell, his predecessors
> > were
> > so freaked out by Nichirens teachings that they burned and destroyed
> > as
> > many as they could lay their claws on. Now they continue to try to
> > cover
> > up their tracks and when they cannot respond honorable.......they
> > slander. How pitiful.
> >
> > Ken Burchell
> >
>
> document in question is a forgery or it is not. Your take is, if it
> supports our cause it is legit.
Stephanie, as usual, not true at all. I stand by what I ACTUALLY said (as opposed to the words you atyempt to put in my mouth). It is a matter of historical fact that your predecessors intentionally destroyed gosho and documents that conflicted with their views. In some cases, early and faithful true copies of these Gosho were preserved. How convenient now for you to label them all FORGERIES. Silly person. By your own logic, your Lotus Sutra is also a forgery. Your own integrity is just too weak to admit it. Write again when you can debate in a respectworthy manner.
People, please realize that the person who lays out these weak and self-serving accusations will not even apply the same standard to his/her own practice. No original of the Lotus Sutra exists ANYWHERE either, so by her standard the Lotus Sutra itself is a FORGERY. They all have elaborate rationalizations
to justify it, but check me out on this. No original copy of the Lotus Sutra exists ANYWHERE in this world.
Bruce and Stephanie also say that it's not the historical Shakyamuni but the "eternal"
Shakyamuni (or the Shakyamuni of the Essential Teaching) that they are talking about. The Daishonin talks about the "Shakyamuni of the Essential teaching" but in the Gosho the "True Object of Worship" the Daishonin says that this Shakyamuni of the Essential Teaching ATTENDS UPON THE TRUE BUDDHA WHICH IS IN THE CENTER OF THE GOHONZON.
Realize, that Only the True Buddha could inscribe the Gohonzon.
Also, the denial of Gosho and Transfer Documents' authenticity is
ridiculous! Psycho! Jealously from the 13th century onword those who
doubted Nichiren was really much greater than Tien-Tai and slandered Nikko
as though he was a fanatic, the other senior priests, just couldn't make
the adjustment to the new Buddhism. They still thought that the silent
meditation of Tientai was really the best thing going and could even be
combined with various shingon ritual. In the final analysis they they
thought Nichiren and Nikko was wierd so they watered down the teachings.
EVERYONE knew that Nikko was chosen successor, All the top Priests knew
of the Dai Gohonzon but doubted the whole idea, especially angry that
Nikko was put in charge.
> Taisekiji and Nichiren Shoshu have one main industry: they manufacture
> lies and forgeries to justify their claims.
Now there's a high-quality argument. I (Stephanie) claim they are liars and forgers,therefore they are. Simple name-calling. The kind of discussion I would expect from these people.
> None of the documents
> that they quote from are attributable to Nichiren or Nikko or even
> Nichimoku.
Better guess again:
the DaiGohonzon being a plank of wood, etc., etc., why,
The DaiGohonzon has an unusual shape. :
What is that shape?
Answer: Nippo honed only one side -- the front.
The back is ROUNDED.
All of the speculation and allegations about the
DaiGohonzon, based on an alleged photograph of the front
of the DaiGohonzon, and even Nichijo's alleged allegations,
are unfounded because not one person in modern history outside of Nichiren Shoshu, not
even Nichijo of Kitayama Honmonji, has ever seen the
DaiGohonzon up close, much less examined or measured it. If
they had, they would have known it's peculiar shape.
Nikko Shonin stated in his own handwriting in the
> Technique......Tell a lie big enough and often enough and ignorant
> people will eventually mistake it for the truth.
My mother used to call this the "pot calling the kettle black" argument. Now we're all "nazi's" because we don't subscribe to Maltz-shu pseudo-doctrine.
Woman, get thee hence into the kitchen unless thee can behave with honor.
>
> The biggest forgery ..............
>
Oh, for pity's sake........forgery, forgery, forgery....you guys are like Chicken Little, for cryin' out loud. Try something different.....or at least apply the standard to your own beloved book, the Lotus Sutra. Its a copy of a copy fo a copy, too. And many modern scholars doubt itss "authenticity" or proper place in the Buddhist Canon as well. At least have the integrity to use the same logic to your own case.
Ken Burchel
(still waiting for ONE argument with a little integrity).
Rogowdoc
Ken, you write:
>>>>>To repeat what I just posted in another thread to Marc, the ONLY item
I have NOT provided "documention of origin" on is the "Jogyo Shoden Sho".
I freely admit that. However, I have cited several items in Nikko's hand,
items authenticated by experts on all sides, and items (uses against my
school in this newsgroup) declared forgeries by your own cited "Nichiren
Shu scholars". Care to respond?>>>>>
Talk is cheap, put up or shut up. Lets see these verification
documents. At least, reguarding the Lotus sutra I can demonstrate the
verification documents of Tientai and Nichiren:
"The Lord Shakyamuni who declared 'I alone can save them,' at a
time even more distant than gohyaku-jintengo, is none other than each of
us." (MW vol 2, I2U Exile, pg 55)
"The doctrines that the Buddha taught over a period of fifty years
number eighty thousand...The eight years during which he preached the
Lotus Sutra he called the time when he 'now must reveal the truth'. Thus
Taho Buddha came forth from the earth to testify that 'All that you have
expounded is the truth,' and the Buddhas that are emanations of the
Original Buddha gathered together and extended their tongues up to the
Brahma-heaven in testimony." (MW vol 2, Ibid, pg 79)
"When Shakyamuni Buddha revealed that he had gained enlightenment
in the far distant past and had since then been constantly in the world it
became apparent that all the other Buddhas were emanations of Shakyamuni."
(MW vol 2, Ibid, pg 149)
"In the same volume in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha says, 'for the
sake of the Buddha way I have in countless different lands from the
begining until now widely preached various sutras, but among them this
Sutra is foremost'. This passage means that Shakyamuni Buddha has
appeared in countless lands, taking different names and assuming varying
life spans." (Ibid, pg 77)
"And among the Sutras, the Lotus Sutra is a manifestation in
writing of Shakyamuni Buddha's intent; it is his voice set down in written
word." (Ibid, pg 147)
"Only the Lotus Sutra represents the wonderful teaching preached directly
from the golden mouth of Shakyamuni Buddha, who is perfectly endowed with
the three bodies." (MW vol 5, Letter to Myomitsu Shonin, pg 196)
Not only are you calling us liars but nichiren as well. You
are a depraved individul like your priests and the shame they have leveled
on the Daishonin.
Mark
Julianlzb87
Rogowdoc wrote:
> Ken, you write:
>
> >>>>>To repeat what I just posted in another thread to Marc, the ONLY
> item
> I have NOT provided "documention of origin" on is the "Jogyo Shoden
> Sho".
> I freely admit that. However, I have cited several items in Nikko's
> hand,
> items authenticated by experts on all sides, and items (uses against
> my
> school in this newsgroup) declared forgeries by your own cited
> "Nichiren
> Shu scholars". Care to respond?>>>>>
>
> Talk is cheap, put up or shut up. Lets see these
> verification
> documents. At least, reguarding the Lotus sutra I can demonstrate the
> verification documents of Tientai and Nichiren:
Please make it clear. Who wrote the Lotus Sutra?
Julianlzb87
Bo Fugen
Craig wrote:
>
> On 13 Jul 1997 12:14:31 GMT, "Shinsyou Koyama" <shin...@ppp.bekkoame.or.jp> wrote:
>
> >If I requested to send a Gohonzon from the Andromeda big nebula, I will
> >send a " digital Gohonzon " without waiting 300000000000 years.
>
> Sorry Revvvv...
> not for the Andromeda strain...
>
> The fact is that your group is already sending digital images
> all over the Earth where there are Gohonzons to be aquired
> locally.
>
> Can a digital image on the internet contain the Law?
> the "delete" button? Dioes he go to hell for destroying
> the Law, or is everything forgiven once he scans in a new one?
>
Craig, the Law is not contained in a wooden board, nor it is contained
in a paper scroll. Nor it is up to some pompous guy to decide who's
gonna get it and who ain't. The Law is not created and can not be
destroyed. Hell starts here and now for those who are angry, ignorant,
miserable, self-righteous and petty and who have no respect for others.
Take care,
Bo Fugen
Rogowdoc
Julio\an, you write:
>>>>>Rogowdoc wrote:
> Julian, you write:
>
> >>>>>If you are not sure who wrote the document... how can yoube sure
> where the content originated?>>>>>
>
> I answered this before, at least a half a dozen times.
> Nichiren
> believed it, he was sure about it and he is my master.
He is not your master any more than anyone else's .He, as far as I know,
did not take on you, Rogowdoc, as a disciple more
than everyone else. Everyone has a spin. To say that Nichiren was your
master is not enough in my book.>>>>>
I've taken him on. That's enough for me. I changed my allegiance
from Ikeda to Nichiren. Is that Ok with you? If its not, you know what I
am thinking.
> I believe him.
> Tientai, although not my master has earned my respect and he too
> believed
> it and I too believe him. I don't believe those scholars that say
> Shjakyamuni didn't preach the Lotus Sutra. As far as I am concerned,
> they
> have an agenda and compared to Nichiren and Tientai, are a bunch of
> idiots, a bunch of mental midgets. Why wouldn't you believe Nichiren
> about
> this but believe Nichiren about the Daimoku?
What Nichiren said about Daimoku I have tested it and it is true.What he
said about Shakyamuni and Tien't Tai... is another matter. I do not know
how to test it. I can't get confirmation. I have asked them but they
won;'t discuss it anymore.>>>>>
Do you accept only those thing you can verify from Nichiren
and reject the rest? Just curious.
> That makes no sense.
>>>>>Well think a little longer. Try chanting Myoho Renge Kyo.>>>>>
I much prefer Namu Myoho renge kyo.
> Are you
> a Nichiren detractor too?
>>>>>Hang on a second... I'll find out... ahem...
NICHIREN, Am I your detractor? Am I pissing you off?
... hmmm... silence...>>>>>
Your pissing me off.
>>>>>NICHIREN, name a superior disciple of your self to Julianlzb87?
.... hmmm .. silence....>>>>>
SHIJO KINGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>>>>>NICHIREN, for pities sake.... people are waiting for you to denounce
me... SPEAK...>>>>>>
THE LOTUS SUTRA IS THE GOLDEN WORDS OF THE BUDDHA SHAKYAMUNI
>>>>>.... more silence...>>>>>
Your not listening hard enough.
>>>>>Well... Rog... There you have your answer from your master.>>>>>
His words are my answer and they should be your too.
> faith as strong as yours. If you doubt Nichiren about who preached the
>
> Lotus Sutra, i tend to doubt your sincerity. Prove to me i am wrong?
>>>>>Not my job mate.>>>>>
It is your duty as a Bodhisattva. Now if you don't care about me
that is another story. I care about you enough to correct you when I think
you are wrong.
>>>>>I am here to make you right.>>>>>
That is a nice thought. You will gain merits from ten thousand
miles afar.
Mark
Julianlzb87