Nichikan Shonin, a parasite

[lotu...@cyberis.net]

Let's recap what has been written about the so called "Ita
Mandara" (Board Mandala) or "dai-gohonzon" of
Taisekiji........much of this has appeared over the last
year on these boards, but, for the sake of new people, here
it is again:

1. Board mandalas first appeared int the later Muromachi
Period (post 1333 AD), long after Nichiren's death. These
board mandalas were associated with Hokke fraternities and
Hokke Halls that sprang up in the Muromachi period. The
term "Hokke Shu" ( or Hokke Ko, which is "Lotus Sutra
confraternity), which is written on the so-called
dai-gohonzon, was not used during Nichiren's lifetime but
several decades later. In fact, the Tendai sect took the
Nichiren temples to court over the use of the term, "Hokke
Shu", which, up till the Muromachi period, was used
exclusively by the Tendai sect. The Tendai sect regarded
the Nichiren movement as just an offshoot of the legitimate
Tendai sect, and therefore exerted its right to the use of
the name, "Hokke Shu" (Lotus Sect). This tell tale
discrepancy of the term "Hokke Shu" (or Hokke Ko) places the
date of the so-called "dai-gohonzon" well beyond its
supposed date of 1279.

2. The so-called "dai gohonzon" is inscribed on camphor
wood which does not grow on Minobusan. Camphor wood
("kusunoki") is only found along the coast in southern
Kyushu (the coastline running along the Japan current or
"Kuroshio"). It was (and still is) astronomically
expensive; therefore, if it were a donation from a believer,
there would have to be a reliable historical source to
authenticate its improbable existence on a mountain, far
from the tropical coastline. There is no such historical
source at all.

3. Taisekiji claims that the so-called "dai gohonzon' was
carved by Nippo on Mt. Shichimen ( an neighboring mountain
to Mt. Minobu). But Shichimenzan had no part in the life of
Nichiren, and did not belong to the lands that Lord Hakiri
controlled, hence was off limits to Nichiren and his
disciples. Lord Hakiri was the landlord of Mt. Minobu and
he sheltered Nichiren there for the last 9 years of his
life. Nippo was a well known sculptor, as well as a
disciple of Nichiren, but he never worked at Minobusan or
Shichimenzan.

4. Nikko never mentions this so-called "dai gohonzon" in
any of his authenticated writings. The first mention of the
details about the so-called "dai gohonzon" was recorded in
the "Kechu Sho" which dates from 1662. Even there, the
reference has been tampered with. There are no reliable
historical documents that mention the so-called "dai
gohonzon". Nichiren never mentions it, Nikko never mentions
it. The first word of it is in 1488, when Nichi-u announces
it to the world. This "ita mandara" was attacked by
Nichijo, head priest of Kitayama Hommonji, a contemporary of
Nichi-u. Nichijo reports that Nichi-u had become a leper, a
severe retribution for "having gone against the fundamental
intention of the founder of the temple, and the carving the
ita mandara, which had never been seen or heard of; he also
produced forged books adorned with his own doctrines" (from
the "Taisekiji Kyowaku Kempon Sho" or "The Insane Revelation
of the Original Buddha at Taisekiji", written by Nichijo.)
Note that Nikko spent the last 36 years of his life at this
Kitayamam Hommonji and his grave (which faces Minobusan, not
Taisekiji) is there. This Hommonji was probably the best
candidate for the "Hommonji" that is mentioned in the forged
"transfer documents". The name, "Taisekiji" cannot be
mistaken for "Hommonji". Nikko left four authentic mandalas
by Nichiren at Kitayama Hommonji. He added, in his own
handwriting, the following inscriptions , "Hanging it up in
the Hommonji, one should make it the esteemed jewel of the
Latter Age". Each of these four mandalas has such an
inscription from Nikko. These mandalas ended up at several
other Nikko temples, but the reference to "Hommonji" at
Kitayama is irrefutable. Of the eight Nikko temples, four
received authentic Nichiren gohonzons. Taisekiji did not
receive such a prize from Nikko at all. Nikko never
mentions a supreme board mandala. If he left this supreme
treasure at Taisekiji, then he NEVER again returned to
Taisekiji to see it, nor did he orient his grave toward it.
His instructions regarding his grave, in his own
handwriting, is that it face Minobusan. This would be an
unthinkable breech of etiquette if a "supreme dai-gohonzon"
was left at Taisekiji. Nikko left Taisekiji after only 18
months there, and he spent the rest of life at Kitayama
Hommonji, never returning to Taisekiji again.

5. Insofar as can be ascertained from the one circulated
photograph of the so-called "dai-gohonzon" (taken in 1910,
with permission of Taisekiji), the handwriting is VERY
peculiar. Nichiren's handwriting has been carefully studied
and catalogued by the late Suzuki Ichiro and Yamanaka
Kihachi. The handwriting of the so-called "dai gohonzon" is
from the 3rd year of Koan (1280), not the 2nd year of Koan
(1279), which is the formal date on the "ita mandara". It
is almost a carbon copy of a genuine Nichiren gohonzon of
1280, now at Myokaiji in Numatsu near Fuji. It is important
to note that the SGI/NST gohonzons, inscribed by various
high priests of Taisekiji, are VERY different, both in form
and content, from the so-called "dai-gohonzon". Certain
placement of kanji have been conspicuously altered, and
phrases has been added to the body of the honzon. Such
phrases never appeared in any other Nichiren gohonzon, and
are incongruous with the nature of the gohonzon. (These
are the phrases referring to "gain" and "loss", on either
side of the SGI/NST honzons). The SGI/NST honzons claim to
be faithful copies of the so-called "dai-gohonzon" but they
are very different from the prototype, especially with
regard to the size of the kanji in Nichiren name and his
"kao" ("flower stamp"). In general, the size of the Daimoku
is larger than that found on Mandalas written in 1279 and
before then. This size of Daimoku was found on gohonzons
from 1280, 1281 and 1282. So, the so-called "dai-gohonzon"
is only consistent with gohonzons from 1280 and beyond.

6. The so-called "dai gohonzon" is conferred upon a
"Yashiro Kunishige", whose name is completely unknown to
anyone, either in Nichiren's time or thereafter. The
Nichiren Sho Shu High Priest, Hori Nikkyo, who was the
greatest NST scholar of this century, said, "I do not know
the basis for this matter of Yashiro Kunishige" (Source:
Fuji Shugaku Yoshu, published by NST itself). Hori Nikkyo
could not come up with any historical source for Yashiro
Kunishige. It could not stand in for the farmers of the
Atsuhara persecution because peasant farmers did not have
last names in those days. Over half of all of Nichiren's
authenticated mandalas do not bear personal inscriptions on
them. Hence, the argument that they were designated for
personal use and not "for all mankind" cannot be supported.
The term "ichienbudai' is the Japanese rendering for
"Jambudvipa". The translation, "for all mankind" is really
a stretch for the classical Buddhist name of Jambudvipa (the
southern continent of a Mt. Sumeru system).

7. Neither Nikko nor Nichiren ever inscribed gohonzons on a
plank of wood. Nikko specifically forbade the transferring
of a gohonzon from paper to wood, in his own writing,
"Fuji-isseki-monto-zonji-no-koto", claiming that an
engraving on a plank would belittle the value of the
original handwriting. This was written in response to the
request of several believers to create a wooden mandala,
which was just then being introduced for the first time
(1333, the same year that Nikko died). Because of so many
fires, temples were seeking ways to preserve their paper
treasures by transferring them to wood. Nikko was adamantly
opposed to any such transfers from paper to wood and scolded
the believers for suggesting such a thing.

8. Nichi-u claimed that the so-called "Ita Mandara" was the
most legitimate gohonzon that Nichiren intended to inscribe,
and that all other mandalas written by Nichiren were
"worthless". The copying of a gohonzon is not a prohibited
practice, but the claim that the imitation "ita mandara" was
the only "genuine or supreme" mandala is where the blasphemy
occurs. It is not correct to dismiss all other authentic
Nichiren gohonzons with the shaky claim that there is one
"supreme mandala". Only a statement to that effect from
Nichiren himself could be trusted. And Nichiren never makes
any mention of a "supreme mandala" in the form of a "ita
mandara". ALL gohonzons, according to Nichiren, are the
SUPREME mandalas. ("dai-mandara' is used by Nichiren to
describe all of his gohonzons.) The only claims from
Taisekiji are obvious forgeries, which date from the 15th
century. No other copies of any substantiating documents
exist outside of the walls of Taisekiji itself.

The history of succession at Taisekiji is replete with cases
of leprosy, palsy, madness, cancer of the mouth and throat,
etc. These are serious retribution for slander, evident in
the lifetime of the particular high priest in question. In
truth, the "succession" was never authentic from the start,
and the "line" has been broken over a dozen times. High
priests have taken Taisekiji to court in the past, they have
deserted their high office, never to be heard from again,
and they have died without naming any successor at all in at
least six instances. Three high priest were only children
at the time of their "succession", one high priest was sued
in court for having illicit sexual intercourse with his own
daughter (the case was hushed up in an out-of-court
settlement). The stories go on and on, but who cares? The
legitimacy of Nichiren's philosophy can only be found in
Nichiren's own authenticated words, not in the words of
later priest and not in the words of later forgeries. There
is no mention of a so-called "ita mandara" in Nichiren's own
lifetime. Nichiren's hut at Minobusan was only 10 square
feet. There was no place to put such a board mandala in his
small hermitage. (The temple, Kuonji was not built at
Minobusan until 1281.) How could it have been kept secret
if there was no place to conceal it?

1419 Nichiei, the 8th High Priest, unable to find a
successor, transfers the heritage of the Law to Aburano
Joren, a lay believer. This is in the records of
transmission of Taisekiji itself. (Fuji Shugaku Yoshu, v. 5,
p.255, "Biography of Nichi-e")

**Mr. Joren transfers it to Nichiu who was only 18 years
old at the time.

1409-1482 Nichiu, the 9th High Priest, restores the Head
Temple which had previously fallen into decline as the
result of the land dispute begun by Nichigo after
Nichimoku's death.

Nichijo, the 10th High Priest, and Nittei, the 11th
High Priest, passed away without naming successors so Nichiu
had to assume office again from 1472 until his death in
1482.

Nichi-u, the 9th High Priest of Taisekiji, died of
leprosy....

Several people have asked for some source references for
this story. The idea that a farmer from Fuji started the
rumor is not a documented source (and it sounds fishy,
too...)

The source for the leprosy story is, of all things, from
Nichiren Shoshu itself!

From the "Fuji-Shuo Gaku Yoo Shuo" (Fuji School of Studies
V.5 p.39) edited by Horii Nikkyo himself (the greatest
scholar of Taisekiji of this century and a High Priest,
retired)...it says:

"The 9th generation of Taisekiji, Nichi-u, became a leper."

And again in Vol.7, p.44 of the above mentioned edition by
Horii Nikkyo, there is an attack against Nichi-u for various
transgressions. In the "Koomom Shoo-gi", p.211 (Orthodoxy
of the Nikko School) another reference to Nichi-u and his
leprosy is made

One would ask why Horii Nikkyo would attack one of his
predecessors. The answer I got is that he was an honest
scholar and printed many things that were historically
accurate but not popular with Taisekiji. (He was, after all,
a former High Priest, and no one was about to criticize him)
It was Horii Nikkyo who said that he had no idea who
"Yashiro Kunishige" (the name on the dai-gohonzon) was, or
which story of how the mandala came into Taisekiji's possess
ion is true. Nichi-u himself said that Kunishige transferred
it to Taisekiji in the 15th Century, which contradicts the
story that he had it transferred to wood from a paper
gohonzon that had been "hidden" for two hundred years. The
popular version today is that the wooden mandala was taken
by Nikko from Minobusan to Taisekiji, but there is no
mention of such a large wooden mandala being brought to
Taisekiji. After all, it couldn't be concealed in someone's
sleeve and it is a heavy, obvious object.

1482 Nitchin becomes appointed the 12th High Priest at 14
years of age by Nichiu (before Nichiu's death).

Nitchin at some point later in his life then transfers
the office and heritage of the Law to Nichiin, a 10 year
old boy who, though considered High Priest at that age,
didn't even begin his study of the
Daishonin's Buddhism till 3 years later after he became 13.

At some point in the mid to late fifteen hundreds
Taiseki-ji began to fall into serious decline. The main
reason for this was because it was located far away from
the political and cultural center of Kyoto. As a
result, the priests at Taiseki-ji started the process of
importing candidates for High Priest from the Yoho-ji
temple, a branch sect of the Nikko school, in Kyoto. The
Yoho-ji temple held doctrines that varied
significantly from the orthodoxy of the Daishonin's
Buddhism. In particular, they considered Shakyamuni to be
the True Buddha (as opposed to Heretical Taisekiji) and used
his statue as an appropriate object of worship. The first
such candidate to assume the role of High Priest, Nissho,
was invited in 1594 by the 14th High Priest Nisshu. This
reign of High Priests imported from Yoho-ji temple
continued for almost a hundred years until 1692 when
Nikkei, the 23rd High Priest, passed away.

1596 Nissho, the 15th High Priest, erects a statue of
Shakyamuni as the object of worship and encourages the
recitation of the entire 28 chapter Lotus Sutra as practice.

Nissei, the 17th High Priest (who was ordained at
Yoho-ji temple) writes the, "Chronological Accounts of
Sage Nichiren," encouraging believers to worship a statue
of Shak yamuni and to recite the entire Lotus Sutra.

In a dispute with Kyodai'in, the great-granddaughter
of Tokugawa Ieyasu and an influential lay patron who built
the Miei-do temple in 1632, Nissei quit the office of High
Priest and left the head temple leaving no successor.

1641 Nisshun, the 19th High Priest, went to Jozai-ji
temple to be recognized as legitimate successor by Nissei
after receiving authorization from the shogunate
government for the head temple's domain. Nissei made
peace with Kyodai'in (see above) and returned to the head
temple to officially appoint Nisshun to be the 19th High
Priest in 1645.

1718 Nichikan Shonin, a parasite, becomes the 26th High
Priest and destroys the teaching of Nichiren, Nikko,
Nichimoku, etc.. He wrote tirelessly to distort the
Daishonin's teachings, including the Rokkan Sho (lit.,
"Six-Volume Writing") which is one of the most bizarre
pieces of Buddhist literature ever written, with the
incorrect interpretations of the Daishonin's teachings.

In short, the light of common sense and logic do not support
even the smallest shred of evidence for a so-called
"dai-gohonzon" in the lifetime of Nichiren. Nor even in the
lifetime of Nikko.
Dave, you promised proof, but you have not shed one drop of
evidence to support the Taisekiji-SGI theology, **NONE**.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading