The Daishonin never mentions the Dai Gohonzon?
Christopher H. Holte
of Marc's allegations:
>>1).The Daishonin never mentions the DaiGohonzon.
>wrong - he does mention it. It is not in many Goshos, but adherents
>of the Minobu sect burned many Goshos and many have been lost over
> the years.
The trouble with this reply is two-fold. One, to allege that something
was mentioned but that it's no longer extent because the originals were
destroyed, is somewhat dishonest. The Fuji School maintains that they
protected the Gosho in the face of such bad behavior from the other
Priests. Had there been such a Gosho it would have been protected and
carefully preserved -- at least as copies.
Two, if the Daishonin had directly mentioned "The Dai Gohonzon"
specifically referring to the Log Gohonzon that Taisekiji refers to (of
Camphor wood with the planed face), I'm sure that the Gosho where it is
mentioned would have been carefully preserved -- at least as copies.
Now the Gohonzon is mentioned rather pointedly in a number of Gosho and
I have made a case that the Daishonin meant it as the "Banner of the
Lotus Sutra". I rather think that he intended the Gohonzon in General
to be the "Dai Gohonzon" and wasn't thinking of any Gohonzon in
particular. I could be wrong, it is certainly a wonderful story about
Nippo and the floating log. However the story comes from the same
place as the stories that are used to impeach the Dai Gohonzon.
More importantly, the Dai Gohonzon as a "Template" (or Ur Gohonzon) for
other Gohonzon, is something that if it didn't exist surely should have
existed. Therefore one can use a different criterion than the
historicity of the Dai Gohonzon to judge it (in the absence of prove-
able fraud). That criterion is what one might call the "Kumarajiva
Test"). Kumarajiva translated the Lotus Sutra and his tongue never
burned. More importantly teachings based on the Lotus Sutra were
logical and beneficial to those following them. Thus the Lotus Sutra
met the test of actual Proof and theoretical Proof, even if not
directly authored by the Historical Shakyamuni.
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H.
Holte</a>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mpc...@my-deja.com
trying to say that the Dai Gohonzon is a fake or not what Nichiren
Shoshu says it is?
Is this a trend in SGI to not believe in the Dai Gohonzon anymore?
Cody in Spain
In article <7r30e7$cso$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Christopher H. Holte
mpc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Chris, I fail to see your point in this long, rambling post. Are you
> trying to say that the Dai Gohonzon is a fake or not what Nichiren
> Shoshu says it is?
>
> Is this a trend in SGI to not believe in the Dai Gohonzon anymore?
First I am speaking for myself.
Second I was replying to something in a post by Paul that I had missed
the first go around. The point is that the Gosho doesn't mention the
particular Gohonzon known as the Dai Gohonzon. Paul made the answer
that there had been such Gosho and that they had been burned by the
other sects. That answer struck me as an incorrect one, as it
presupposes documents that cannot be found and basically is inventing
documents that likely never existed. Perhaps I am sharing half
developed thoughts, but the honest case for the Dai Gohonzon is not so
simple as the one made by NST. The current approach of NST is
dishonest. It is the kind of case that depends on what is not known
rather than what is known. Nippos log is a legend, Gosho can be
documented, there is a difference between the two. There is an honest
case to be made by the Fuji Sect, but it is not being made.
ipcr...@hotmail.com
"A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
Cody in Spain
Christopher H. Holte <> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> First I am speaking for myself.
So, do you believe in the Dai Gohonzon or not?
Cody
Stephen C. Schwichow
> In article <7r30rk$d27$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mpc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Chris, I fail to see your point in this long, rambling post. Are you
> > trying to say that the Dai Gohonzon is a fake or not what Nichiren
> > Shoshu says it is?
> >
> > Is this a trend in SGI to not believe in the Dai Gohonzon anymore?
>
> First I am speaking for myself.
> Second I was replying to something in a post by Paul that I had missed
> the first go around. The point is that the Gosho doesn't mention the
> particular Gohonzon known as the Dai Gohonzon. Paul made the answer
> that there had been such Gosho and that they had been burned by the
> other sects. That answer struck me as an incorrect one, as it
> presupposes documents that cannot be found and basically is inventing
> documents that likely never existed. <snip>
Nichiren wrote a famous gosho while on Sado Island in which he made several
predictions. He said that at some point in the future a great leader who
was the "Temple Builder" (I was told that the kanji for Daisaku can also be
translated as "builder of the temple") would be the leader of World Kosen
Rufu and would usher in the new age as Maitreya Buddha. Further Nichiren
said the he was instructing his favorite disciple Nikko to keep the gosho
hidden and to protect it just as he was to protect the Dai Gohonzon and the
secret lineage to his successors.
Finally, in the gosho Nichiren predicted that an evil priest by the name of
Nikken would burn the letter in an attempt to destroy the flow of kosen rufu
and thwart the efforts of the Temple Builder to unite the entire world under
him.
Well, I guess we'll just have to take it on faith, huh?
Stephen
Christopher H. Holte
ipcr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he says
> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
Ah, this "Hon'ninmyo Sho" is alleged to have been dictated by the
Daishonin, what to Nikko? Is this Gosho authenticated as in Nikko's
own hand? Does it exist in original or in copy? Is it one of the ones
that fall into the category "It is okay (to alter Gosho if done by a
HP) for doctrinal purposes*" ? That is the difficulty that comes from
a priesthood that equates High Priests and the Daishonin. Even "true
Gosho" become suspect because of the hands that possess them. Do you
see what Nikken's doctrines do to Nichiren Shoshu's credibility? No
matter how old dishonest doctrines may be they are still dishonest. And
the doctrine of High Priest infallibility (or equivalence with the
Daishonin) is the most dishonest doctrine of all.
How can I believe the Honinmyo Sho is even a valid Gosho when I cannot
even trust that it was transcribed by Nikko much less that it is
Nichiren's actual words? The words even sound suspicious. When the
Daishonin would have said them, the sanctuary was still at Minobusan
Temple. I don't even know if that is a "true" translation or if I can
trust that. The result of dogmatic priests when there are so many
sources of contrary information is that they discredit themselves. I
doubt you can even see what I am talking about, but others surely can.
Your priests actions and methods betray his own school and betray it's
own teachings. When the senior leaders of the Gakkai said that the HP
has "No faith" they were referring to this. If he had true faith in the
Daishonin's Buddhism he would have no fear of the truth and no fear of
people from outside authenticating Gosho, the Gohonzon, of debating (or
dialoguing) with people, or even of the Gakkai.
*QA 56 published by Derek DJuhl of the priesthoods Questions and
Answers on the Sokagakkai Issue maintains that many Gosho were not
written by Nichiren, and yet are equally valid because they were
authored or modified by High Priests who possess the lineage.
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H.
Holte</a>
Christopher H. Holte
"Cody in Spain" <i...@jamthespamersciberia.com> wrote:
>
> Christopher H. Holte <> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
>
That is the question isn't it? I believe in the Gohonzon. I did
believe in the Dai Gohonzon, but the words of the priests have cast
grave doubts in my mind. Expecially those of Kawabe, Nikken, and
Question and Answer 56, which show the lack of faith of the priests and
their efforts to cover it up by demanding obedience.
Chris
mpc...@my-deja.com
> "Cody in Spain" <i...@jamthespamersciberia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Christopher H. Holte <> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> > > First I am speaking for myself.
> >
> > So, do you believe in the Dai Gohonzon or not?
> That is the question isn't it? I believe in the Gohonzon. I did
> believe in the Dai Gohonzon, but the words of the priests have cast
> grave doubts in my mind. Expecially those of Kawabe, Nikken, and
> Question and Answer 56, which show the lack of faith of the priests
and
> their efforts to cover it up by demanding obedience.
>
> Chris
A real shame, Chris. A real shame.
Cody in Spain
Christopher H. Holte
mpc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7r3gtk$q4f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Christopher H. Holte <lio...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <936712364.117388@cache0>,
> > "Cody in Spain" <i...@jamthespamersciberia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Christopher H. Holte <> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> > > > First I am speaking for myself.
> > > So, do you believe in the Dai Gohonzon or not?
> > That is the question isn't it? I believe in the Gohonzon. I did
> > believe in the Dai Gohonzon, but the words of the priests have cast
> > grave doubts in my mind. Expecially those of Kawabe, Nikken, and
> > Question and Answer 56, which show the lack of faith of the priests
> > and their efforts to cover it up by demanding obedience.
>
>
> A real shame, Chris. A real shame.
>
But I have faith in the Dharma, and though I may not have much faith in
the explainations of the priests, I believe that there are better
explainations than the ones I've seen so far. I'm sorry sometimes that
I have such critical facilities as I do, but I am especially sorry that
they should need to be engaged. As Carmen says it is conceit for me to
see myself as either equal to, better than, or worse than they are, but
for now, to get to the truth I have to play the role of the little boy
in the Emperors Parade. He's wearing no clothes Cody, he's naked.
It's embarrassing but I'm not the cause of his nudity.
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H. Ho
Operation D
wrote:
>In article <7r36jo$hl6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ipcr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he says
>> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
>> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
>> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
>> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
>
>Ah, this "Hon'ninmyo Sho" is alleged to have been dictated by the
>Daishonin, what to Nikko?
well it's in the Gakkai's Goshu Zenshu
rest of post snipped out of boredom
once again Chris - keep clear, concise and to the point - otherwise nobody will
bother reading you.
P
SGI : No longer "Buddhism"
http://freespace.virgin.net/uk.buddhism/sginfo.htm
http://hokke.co.uk
MarcInMD
was mentioned but that it's no longer extent because the originals were
destroyed, is somewhat dishonest. <<
Past that , there are no secondary references to the Ita Mandala at all. Its
pretty hard to believe that such a pivitol thing would not be mentioned and as
Chris says, its hard to believe in whole-sale Gosho burnings to cover it up.
But more convincing is that no one else, no other Priest, Senior of Junior, no
Lay man or Lay woman, not Toki Jonin, Lady Myoo nor Shingo Kingo..not one
single person in any letter or document mentions this Mandala or the burning of
central Gosho's covering up its existence.
Without any doubt, the Ita mandala is a product of a moribund little Temple
that was trying to cook up a "special" icon to help them stand out from the
crowd. There is no evidence to tie it to Nichiren Daishonin.
Christopher H. Holte
It is better to be a bit rambling -- and truthful -- than to make
unsubstantiatable assertions and call them truth. What is to the point
is that a common mortal who chants Nam Myoho Renge Kyo will achieve
enlightenment, whether or not the wood object Dai Gohonzon is valid or
not. The other point is that your statement that there are plenty of
Gosho mentioning the DaiGohonzon is false, unless one is talking about
the suspect Gosho of Taisekiji. I really hate having Marc or Bruce
agree with me, or having to agree with them, but you would concede
their point yourself if you really thought about it.
What makes the Gosho of Taisekiji suspect is this doctrine of
equivalence of the High Priests -- and the application of it to the
verification of the Gosho. After all if all HP's are equivalent, then
it doesn't matter whether Nikko or Nichiu had the Dai Gohonzon carved.
It doesn't matter whether the transfer documents were forged or
genuine, because the forger was endorsed by a High Priest. Such easy
doctrines are attacked in the Gosho, but why should a High Priest care?
He's the essence after all.
The subject may be "boring" to you because you closed your mind on it
long ago, but to me, and to anyone honestly seeking the truth, it will
be open until your High Priests become less "muddied" with false
doctrines and meet the challenge posed by the truth with honesty.
In article <37d551f...@news.virgin.net>,
ip.c...@virgin.net (Operation D ) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 17:05:10 GMT, Christopher H. Holte <lioncub@my-
deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <7r36jo$hl6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ipcr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he says
> >> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo"
with
> >> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the
enlightened
> >> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
> >> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
> >
> >Ah, this "Hon'ninmyo Sho" is alleged to have been dictated by the
> >Daishonin, what to Nikko?
>
> well it's in the Gakkai's Goshu Zenshu
>
> rest of post snipped out of boredom
>
> once again Chris - keep clear, concise and to the point - otherwise
nobody will
> bother reading you.
> SGI : No longer "Buddhism"
MarcInMD
<<
Unless of course he is right. Then it would be a good thing ...No ?
Jim Cub 3D
>> In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he says
>> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
>> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
>> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
>> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
>
He did? You mean that, for all 27+ years of my practice, they've been telling
us that there was no explicit Gosho passage; cite a passage that could, on the
surface, refer to about anything; and said it was the only oblique reference to
the Dai Gohonzon -- and all the time they were sititng on this one, just so
they could eventually release it to Ipcress so he could zing Chris Holte on
ARBN!
Come on, Paul, don't you wonder even a little?
Jim
Visit <bekkoame.or.jp/~bone>
Cult Watcher International
>>In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he
says "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants
"Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with strong faith becomes a
Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened condition
is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"<<<<<<<<
Jimboner crows:
>>>He did? You mean that, for all 27+ years of my practice,
they've been telling us that there was no explicit Gosho
passage; cite a passage that could, on the surface,
refer to about anything; and said it was the only oblique
reference to the Dai Gohonzon -- and all the time they
were sititng on this one, just so they could eventually
release it to Ipcress so he could zing Chris Holte on ARBN!<<<<
IT'S IN THE GAKKER'S OWN GOSHO ZENSHU JIMBONE.
Get your head out of Ikeda's crack for a minute will ya
"The allegation that anyone is revising the true teachings of buddhism
is ludicrous. Yes we are revising our understanding of them, and yes
we are explaining them differently"
Chris Holte
"It's kind of sad that the faith of your sect is so superficial that you can't
admit that a physical mandala is a "religious icon", and can't even address the
thought that Nichiren Daishonin didn't actually inscribe the Dai Gohonzon
himself."
Jim Celer, SGI Living Buddha mag. Midwest Bureau CHIEF
"So how can I believe both that Nichiren Shu is heretical, AND that they keep a
valid Gohonzon? Quite simple - "the Gohonzon is found in faith alone." Think
about that, please."
Jim Celer
"BTW, when I called you an idiot, I didn't mean it as an insult."
Jim Celer
"I truly believe the Daishonin would be appalled that a group claiming his name
would maintian that the most important pronciples are a specific icon found at
a specific temple, and a succession of priests -- things so totally removed
form the lives of ordinary people."
Jim
>1) From where I stand True Buddhism looks a lot like the DaiGohonzon and
>the Heritage of True Buddhiam that Nichiren Daishonin and Nikko Shonin
>established and which continues today as Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism.
>Ken
Icons and dogma. I tought the Daishonin wished to replace that kind of
religious thinking with something vital and relevant to human life.
Jim Celer, Midwest Bureau Chief for major SGI publication
The SGI position says that a priestly
class isn't an essential element, okay, I
agree with that. But, there is one.
Whether it's robed priests, or paid
staff. It's a priestly class.
Marizap, SGI member
>"the High Priests are the only ones who have received the Daishonin's teachings,
>and as our masters, have transmitted to us ***the Daishonin's innermost
>enlightenment*** exactly as it is with nothing lacking during 64 transmissions.
>Therefore, when we worship the Dai-Gohonzon through the High Priest, benefits
>will definitely come our way." The Complete Writings Of Josei Toda,
>Vol. 4, p. 399
If I wanted Josei Toda's opinion I would have asked.
Jim Celer, SGI member
"Nikken Drinks his own Urine"
"Nikken even tried drinking urine to stay healthy, so there was always
a cup on top of the toilet. When I asked my senior about this, he
answered with a frown that Nikken was drinking his urine."
"He is no better than an animal
dressed in priestly robes."
From the Soka Gakkai tabloid, "Soka Shimpo"
Posted by Jim Celer, Midwest Bureau CHIEF for the Living Buddha
magazine, Omaha Nebraska
Mr T
jimc...@aol.com (Jim Cub 3D) wrote:
> In article <7r36jo$hl6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ipcr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he says
> >> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
> >> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
> >> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
> >> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
> >
>
> He did? You mean that, for all 27+ years of my practice, they've been telling
> us that there was no explicit Gosho passage; cite a passage that could, on the
> surface, refer to about anything; and said it was the only oblique
reference to
> the Dai Gohonzon -- and all the time they were sititng on this one, just so
> they could eventually release it to Ipcress so he could zing Chris Holte on
> ARBN!
>
> Come on, Paul, don't you wonder even a little?
> Jim
In your religion, you are taught that each of you can read the Gosho at
face value and be aware enough as SGI members, to understand it
completely. You only accept what is directly mentioned in the Gosho as the
basis for part of your religion. (The rest is that Value Creation stuff
that came 700 years later)
Is it no wonder that so many SGI members are allowed to have so many
differing interpretations?
Why shouldn't an SGI member doubt the DaiGohonzon?
--
Kurt
anti-spam measure:
to reply send to: martman at primenet dot com
Rogowdoc
Chris, you write:
>>>>> Cody asks: So, do you believe in the Dai Gohonzon or not?
Chris, replies:
That is the question isn't it? I believe in the Gohonzon. I did believe in the
Dai Gohonzon, but the words of the priests have cast grave doubts in my mind.
Expecially those of Kawabe, Nikken, and
Question and Answer 56, which show the lack of faith of the priests and their
efforts to cover it up by demanding obedience.>>>>>
Bravo!!!
Mark
Operation D
>In article <7r36jo$hl6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> ipcr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> In the Hon'ninmyo Sho (dictated by Nichiren Daishonin) he says
>>> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
>>> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
>>> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
>>> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
>>
>
>He did? You mean that, for all 27+ years of my practice, they've been telling
>us that there was no explicit Gosho passage; cite a passage that could, on the
>surface, refer to about anything; and said it was the only oblique reference to
>the Dai Gohonzon -- and all the time they were sititng on this one
and waddaya you know - there it was in a SOKA GAKKAI COMPENDIUM OF GOSHOS all
along.
get real jimbo
Operation D
wrote:
>Dear Paul;
> It is better to be a bit rambling -- and truthful -- than to make
>unsubstantiatable assertions and call them truth.
I do sypathise - but the fact remains the same. Most people (in fact 80% of us)
just scan pages. It is much better to separate your posts into easily digestable
chunks.
Otherwise, however good or poignant your post is, it all goes to waste - because
people won't read it. - saying that, here's my longest post of the year :
>What is to the point is that a common mortal who chants Nam Myoho Renge Kyo will achieve
>enlightenment, whether or not the wood object Dai Gohonzon is valid or not.
"The object of worship is the presence with which
[the believer] forms a relation. The presence gives rise
to wisdom, and wisdom leads to practice. Thus if
the presence is incorrect, wisdom and practice will also
be incorrect." 26th High Priest, Nichikan Shonin
>The other point is that your statement that there are plenty of
>Gosho mentioning the DaiGohonzon is false, unless one is talking about
>the suspect Gosho of Taisekiji.
I am talking about the ancient writings of the Daishonin and Nikko Shonin as
collected in the Gakkai's own Gosho Zenshu. Whilst I conceed that there are
zillions of Goshos mentioning it, there are enough to show that it is genuine.
It is also worth remembering that, according to Nikko Shonin, the Minobu sect
burned a load of Goshos and many may have been lost over the years. Therefore we
cannot CATAGORICALLY state that the Daishonin never wrote more about it - we
don't have all the evidence to make such a pronouncement.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The truth of a doctrine is not
contingent on it's mention in the few extant Goshos and fragments of Goshos.
The writings that survived the years are, of course, a huge benefit - but a) are
not complete in numbers and b) were not meant as a consolidated recorded manual
of doctrine.
The Daishonin didn't write Goshos as the one and only method of perpetuating his
teachings into the future - in fact he handed that task to the High Priesthood
who preserve the teachings, Goshos, traditions and Daigohonzon.
Don't throw it all away
>I really hate having Marc or Bruce
>agree with me,
well stop veering towards heretical beliefs then !
as a priest once said to me : "turn doubts into questions"
P
Stephen C. Schwichow
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 17:05:10 GMT, Christopher H. Holte <lio...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ah, this "Hon'ninmyo Sho" is alleged to have been dictated by the
> >Daishonin, what to Nikko?
>
> well it's in the Gakkai's Goshu Zenshu
>
> rest of post snipped out of boredom
>
> once again Chris - keep clear, concise and to the point - otherwise nobody will
> bother reading you.
>
> P
Wow!!!! It's in the gosho zenshu, well if THAT doesn't prove that it's an authentic
letter of Nichiren's, nothing will.
I guess the transfer documents and the so-called Dai-Gohonzon are in the gosho
zenshu also? Or are they found in the "Ongi Kuden?"
Stephen
Derek N.P.F. Juhl
Christopher H. Holte <lio...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> *QA 56 published by Derek DJuhl of the priesthoods Questions and
> Answers on the Sokagakkai Issue maintains that many Gosho were not
> written by Nichiren, and yet are equally valid because they were
> authored or modified by High Priests who possess the lineage.
56. The Gakkai says that the passage from "Hyaku Rokka Sho (One Hundred
Six Articles)" which reads, "Since Nikko and the direct successors are
the High Priests who have inherited the Law, they are to be looked up
to as the Head Priest by all, from the central figures to the newest
dissciples unanimously, until the end of time, as when I was alive,"
was later arbitrarily added by someone, so it is not part of the
Daishonin's Gosho. Is That True?
A statement like, "This passage from 'Hyaku Rokka Sho (One Hundred Six
Articles)' is not part of the Gosho" are the words of someone who is
ignorant of the Buddhism bequeathed to Nichiren Shoshu. **The Gosho
Zenshu incudes many Gosho not written in the Daishonin's own hand.**
These include "Ryusenji Moshijo (Petition to Ryusenji Temple)," the
latter part of which was written by Nikko Shonin on behalf
of the Daishonin, and "Hakiri Dono Goho (Report to Lord Hakiri)," the
entirety of which Nikko Shonin wrote on behalf of the Daishonin. There
are also oral teachings, such as "Ongi Kuden (Record of the orally
Transmitted Teachings)" and "Verbatim Lecture Notes (Oko Kikigaki)."
That is all the more reason why it is quite natural for transfer
documents such as "One Hundred Six Atricles" to explicitly state what
is implicit in the Daishonin's doctrines, and for them to appear in a
form that differs from the Daishonin's usual literary style.
If one says that, "Unless a document was written in the Daishonin's own
hand, it cannot be called the Gosho," then none of the extant copies of
transfer documents are the Daishonin's Gosho. Concerning the passage
in question, Fifty-ninth High Priest Nichiko Shonin stated
in "Collection of Study Essentials for the Fuji School," "In terms of
doctrine, it's justifiable." (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 25) As this passage
indicates, a High Priest who inherited the entirety of the Daishonin's
Buddhism through the bequeathal of the lifeblood received by only a
single person himself recorded this as the Gosho, so it contains no
mistakes in its doctrine. For example, even if it were not written by
Nichiren Daishonin or Nikko Shonin, in terms of its orthodox spirit and
meaning, One Hundred Six Articles is an excellent Gosho.
[c. 1996, Nichiren Shoshu Temple]
--
Derek N.P.F. Juhl
http://members.aol.com/djuhl82848/page/index.htm
Operation D
wrote:
>Wow!!!! It's in the gosho zenshu, well if THAT doesn't prove that it's an authentic
>letter of Nichiren's, nothing will.
It's a separate point really, that all these Goshos that have benn inconvenient
to Gakkai history - and therefore deniable by default - were catalogued and
printed in this Gakkai publication.
>I guess the transfer documents and the so-called Dai-Gohonzon are in the gosho
>zenshu also? Or are they found in the "Ongi Kuden?"
The Ongi Kuden itself is in the GZ
Christopher H. Holte
I don't need to comment on QA 56 once again do I? To me it is more of
a crime than anything that might have occured in Seattle. Thanks for
corrobrating my statement with the actual Question and answer. This
one too is for my website.
In article <7r4ss6$qcq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Derek N.P.F. Juhl <djuhl...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <7r3gjs$pof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Christopher H. Holte <lio...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > *QA 56 published by Derek DJuhl of the priesthoods Questions and
> > Answers on the Sokagakkai Issue maintains that many Gosho were not
> > written by Nichiren, and yet are equally valid because they were
> > authored or modified by High Priests who possess the lineage.
>
> 56. The Gakkai says that the passage from "Hyaku Rokka Sho (One
> Hundred
> Six Articles)" which reads, "Since Nikko and the direct successors are
> the High Priests who have inherited the Law, they are to be looked up
> to as the Head Priest by all, from the central figures to the newest
> dissciples unanimously, until the end of time, as when I was alive,"
> was later arbitrarily added by someone, so it is not part of the
> Daishonin's Gosho. Is That True?
>
> A statement like, "This passage from 'Hyaku Rokka Sho (One Hundred Six
> Articles)' is not part of the Gosho" are the words of someone who is
> ignorant of the Buddhism bequeathed to Nichiren Shoshu.
*******The Gosho Zenshu incudes many Gosho not written in the
Daishonin's own hand.****
> These include "Ryusenji Moshijo (Petition to Ryusenji Temple)," the
> latter part of which was written by Nikko Shonin on behalf
> of the Daishonin, and "Hakiri Dono Goho (Report to Lord Hakiri)," the
> entirety of which Nikko Shonin wrote on behalf of the Daishonin.
(not so problematic)
But then they say:
> There
> are also oral teachings, such as "Ongi Kuden (Record of the orally
> Transmitted Teachings)" and "Verbatim Lecture Notes (Oko Kikigaki)."
> That is all the more reason why it is quite natural for transfer
> documents such as "One Hundred Six Articles" to explicitly state what
> is implicit in the Daishonin's doctrines, and for them to appear in a
> form that differs from the Daishonin's usual literary style.
>
> If one says that, "Unless a document was written in the Daishonin's
>own hand, it cannot be called the Gosho," then none of the extant
>copies of transfer documents are the Daishonin's Gosho. Concerning
> the passage in question, Fifty-ninth High Priest Nichiko Shonin
> stated in "Collection of Study Essentials for the Fuji School,"
> "In terms of doctrine, it's justifiable." (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 25)
The context intended by Nichiko Shonin was that it is okay to include
any teaching that teaches the teachings of Nichiren Shoshu, as long as
one understands who wrote them and their place in the teachings. I
doubt he was justifying wholesale forgery and rewriting of Gosho. To
take his remark as justification for the next line is ludicrous!
The below paragraph is an indication of insanity!
> As this passage
> indicates, a High Priest who inherited the entirety of the Daishonin's
> Buddhism through the bequeathal of the lifeblood received by only a
> single person himself recorded this as the Gosho, so it contains no
> mistakes in its doctrine. For example, even if it were not written by
> Nichiren Daishonin or Nikko Shonin, in terms of its orthodox spirit
> and
> meaning, One Hundred Six Articles is an excellent Gosho.
>
> http://members.aol.com/djuhl82848/page/index.htm
>
The very Gosho used to justify Nichiren Shoshu heterodoxy are the ones
that are suspect. To use those same Gosho to justify forgery and
alteration of Gosho is insane. It's just plain vile, base, hypocritical
and insane! No wonder the Gakkai was so willing to separate from such
a deeply "muddied" priesthood! They have turned Nichiren's and Nikko's
admonitions on their head!
What a shame!
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H.
Holte</a>
MarcInMD
"A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" with
strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the enlightened
condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
<<<
Oy vey ! Wanna bet.. ?
Now we are going to have to waste time looking this up and find out that it
either says nothing even remotely like this or that if was first "discovered"
in 1890 or is written in ball point pen.. I will report back.
There is no reference to the Ita Mandala in any authenticated writing of
Nichiren or Nikko. If there was, there would not have been such a controversy
over it and there would have been at least one credible scholar with a known
reputation to side with it. Since there are.. none... we can cast a juandiced
eye on this passage. That is the Prima Facia case..De Jurie case to follow.
Cody in Spain
MarcInMD <> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> Oy vey ! Wanna bet.. ?
>
> Now we are going to have to waste time looking this up and find out that
it
> either says nothing even remotely like this or that if was first
"discovered"
> in 1890 or is written in ball point pen.. I will report back.
>
> There is no reference to the Ita Mandala in any authenticated writing of
> Nichiren or Nikko. If there was, there would not have been such a
controversy
> over it and there would have been at least one credible scholar with a
known
> reputation to side with it. Since there are.. none... we can cast a
juandiced
> eye on this passage. That is the Prima Facia case..De Jurie case to
follow.
And, Marc, if it does say what Paul says it says, what will you do????
Cody
Christopher H. Holte
There is a precedence in teachings. Nichiren taught us how to evaluate
it. If what Ikeda teaches contradicts the Gosho and the Sutras, who do
I follow? The Gosho and the Sutras. If Nikken, likewise. In a school or
thought it is natural to follow wise teachers who illuminate, fill in
the holes, or even come up with radical ideas that follow from the
original premises, but weren't necessarilly part of them. Perhaps I
ask too much of Nichiren Shoshu, after all, the great teacher Nagarjuna
found the Mahayana teachings in an "Iron Tower" beneath the sea. It is
natural to accept as part of the Dharma teachings that hold together
and make sense -- whatever the source. However, no matter how great
the Ongi Kuden is, if it wasn't written by Nichiren that has to be
acknowledged and owned up to. It is crazy to attack others for not
following teachings that aren't from the originator of ones sect -- as
if they were. It is a false equivalence -- especially when the
original teachings are available for evaluation. I love the Honinmyo
Sho and the Ongi Kuden, and will study them along with the teachings of
the 26th HP. But they are part of the whole, and they cannot be taken
seriously if they are to be used for any other purpose. I'm sure that
both of them were written faithfully by Nikko, which makes them mostly
valid. What is the crime is the justification of treating annotations
appended much later (on the original or on copies) as if they were part
of the original text.
In article <37d5ed9...@news.virgin.net>,
ip.c...@virgin.net (Operation D ) wrote:
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H. Ho
Christopher H. Holte
jimc...@aol.com (Jim Cub 3D) wrote:
> In article <7r36jo$hl6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ipcr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> "A common mortal who single-mindedly chants "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo"
with
> >> strong faith becomes a Buddha. The only way to develop the
enlightened
> >> condition is to earnestly chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" to the
> >> DaiGohonzon of the True Sanctuary"
> >
>
been telling
> us that there was no explicit Gosho passage; cite a passage that
could, on the
> surface, refer to about anything; and said it was the only oblique
reference to
just so
> they could eventually release it to Ipcress so he could zing Chris
Holte on
> ARBN!
>
> Come on, Paul, don't you wonder even a little?
> Jim
>
The Honinmyo Sho may or may not be translated as Paul says it is.
Christopher H. Holte
outlook of the Gakkai and the Hokkeko:
In article <nert-07099...@ip-50-238.bur.primenet.com>,
ne...@bobco.com (Mr T) wrote:
> In your religion, you are taught that each of you can read the
> Gosho at face value and be aware enough as SGI members, to
> understand it completely. You only accept what is directly
> mentioned in the Gosho as the basis for part of your religion.
provided with lectures on it and background material so we can
understand some of the more difficult ideas contained, but basically
you have expressed the view of the Gakkai in a nutshell that the Gosho
is paramount. We have "a little trouble" with secret teachings or
transmissions, because Nichiren pointed out that they were a primary
source of mischief.
> (The rest is that Value Creation stuff that came 700 years later)
You can also add in "conflict resolution" and other stuff that the SGI
teaches as a kind of "intro" to Buddhist teachings to give it some
modern relevance and introduce Buddhist ideas to the masses.
> Is it no wonder that so many SGI members are allowed to have so many
> differing interpretations?
Here is the key term "allowed". The SGI leadership has no more control
over how SGI members interpret the Gosho than you do. The SGI has been
teaching "empowermeant", that means trusting that ordinary folks --
given correct information -- will make the right decision. This
revolutionary idea is also the theme of the Lotus Sutra and of
Nichiren's teachings.
> Why shouldn't an SGI member doubt the DaiGohonzon?
As to SGI members doubting the Dai Gohonzon, that is more the result of
the behavior of the priesthood than SGI. The only decent defenses of
the Dai Gohonzon in debate have been performed by lay persons and SGI
members. Nichiren Shoshu has to apologize for memos and keeps silent on
the provenance of the Dai Gohonzon, while using it as a carot to lure
SGI members to leave the SGI. The current doctrines of Nichiren Shoshu
make it impossible for Nichiren Shoshu to defend it's teachings. If you
don't believe me look at QA 56 with an "outsiders eyes".
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H.
Holte</a>
Cody in Spain
Christopher H. Holte <> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> The Honinmyo Sho may or may not be translated as Paul says it is.
It also may or may not rain today. What is your point?
Cody
John Petry
> In the thread 10 reasons the Dai Gohonzon is false Paul replies to one
> of Marc's allegations:
>
> >>1).The Daishonin never mentions the DaiGohonzon.
> >wrong - he does mention it. It is not in many Goshos, but adherents
> >of the Minobu sect burned many Goshos and many have been lost over
> > the years.
>
> The trouble with this reply is two-fold. One, to allege that something
> was mentioned but that it's no longer extent because the originals were
> destroyed, is somewhat dishonest. The Fuji School maintains that they
> protected the Gosho in the face of such bad behavior from the other
> Priests. Had there been such a Gosho it would have been protected and
> carefully preserved -- at least as copies.
>
The problem is that the specific mandala referred to as the "Dai-Gohonzon"
is never referred to by Nichiren nor by any of his contemporaries,
including Nikko. Nichiren and Nikko used the term to refer to the mandala
in general and there are mandalas in existence in Nichiren's hand as well
as that of Nikko and other disciples which plainly refer to that mandala at
the "dai-mandara" or "dai-Gohonzon". The truly interesting aspect to
this is that there is not one single mention anywhere in any writing by
anyone, of ever seeing the ita mandala during Nichiren's lifetime. The
hermitage where he lived was quite small around 12X20 yet no one has
mentioned this specific mandala ever.
The lame claim is made, based upon an unauthenticated letter of Nikko, that
the disciples of Nichiren burned Gosho containing references to the ita
mandala. This is as Chris has shown, a poor argument because it
presupposes two facts, first that such gosho existed and second that there
was an organized attempt to destroy them. Both are wrong.
more information about Nichiren Buddhism: http://www.nichiren.org
Christopher H. Holte
Larger Gohonzon confered by Nichiren. He made a number near the size
of the Dai Gohonzon and some are still extent. It is clear that he
meant for people to worship the Dai Gohonzon (Great honored Mandala),
but whether he meant the one that Nichiren Shoshu possesses seems to be
problematical at this point. I always thought it was obvious that he
meant that one, now to find out that even Nichiren Shoshu High Priests
have doubts (Kawabe memo), what a shame.
In article <37D7CED4...@slip.net>,
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H. Ho
Rogowdoc
Chris, you write:
>>>>> I always thought it was obvious that he meant that one, now to find out
that even Nichiren Shoshu High Priests
have doubts (Kawabe memo), what a shame.>>>>>
You are certainly right. You should definitely have a talk with Jim because
he won't listen to me.
Mark
Christopher H. Holte
There are defenses for the Dai Gohonzon. But I with my limited
understanding of Buddhism, much less of Japanese, am not qualified to
mount them without help from others. Most important is that there is a
lesson in humility to be learned from the issue of the Dai Gohonzon.
The issue of what is heretical and what is "orthodox" is not as easy as
a pronouncement from behind some screen. It is not decided by such
people, but by the relationship one has with the Buddha and the Law.
It's perfectly fine to believe in the Dai Gohonzon. Nichiren meant for
us to believe in the Dai Gohonzon. It just is equally important to note
that he meant it quite literally when he said that the Dai Gohonzon is
inscribed for all mankind. If I could, I would prefer a reproduction of
the Dai Gohonzon of Taisekiji to any Gohonzon inscribed by any High
Priest of Nichiren Shoshu, regardless of the issues surrounding it's
origins (short of actual proven fraud). The way that Taisekiji treats
the Dai Gohonzon doesn't pass the "Sessen Doji Test".
--
<a href="http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/">
http://www.paulingexhibit.org/exhibit/</a><br>
<a href="http://welcome.to/ichinet/">Gosho</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/9011/">Christopher H.
Holte</a>