|
On 02 Sep 1999 02:46:25 GMT, [email protected] (Rogowdoc) wrote:
>
>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.
>2).There is no record of it until the mid 1400's and Nichiu is the
>first to mention it and he reportedly dies a leper.
Again - a pack of lies.
The Daigohonson is mentioned in the will of Nikko Shonin for example.
The "news" about Nichiu dying a leper is one of many unsubstanciated lies that you quote. It is mentioned in a Nichiren Shoshu history book where the author notes that he has recorded what amounts to rumours and gossip where there is no reliable evidence - in the hope that someone will "fill in the blanks" with reality at a later date. The leper thing was invented by enemies of the sect.
>3).The argument that a 1/4 ton block of wood would remain secret from
>the other disciples in the Daishonin's 12' x 8' hut is impossible. It is also
>inconceivable that the other disciples would allow Nikko to take off with the
>"true treasure" of his Buddhism.
How do you know that it was secret ? It was probably common knowledge, but as we all know the disciples had varying interpretations of the significance of the Daishonin. Some may have not thought the Gohonzon important. Others were off making money around the country and tearing up the Daishonin's teachings.
>4).There is no mention of it in the record of the Daishonin's funeral
>in which a listing of his treasures and momentos is found and to whom he
>bequethed what, is also recorded(recorded by Nikko)
Again - is every Gohonzon mentioned ? Perhaps many out-of-touch disciples didn't know or didn't want to know the significance of the Daigohonzon.
>5).Nippo is not known to have ever worked in the area that is
>attributed to him having etched the Gohonzon(Mt. Shimousan(sp.)
Known by who ? the same people that believe that Nichiu Shonin died a leper ? the same people that believe Officer Sprinkle ?
>6).Nikko states in one of his authentic letters that Gohonzon should
>not be etched into wood as it destroys the writing(destroys the Gohonzon
>itself). The heyday period of inscriptions onto wood is the mid 14th century
>and the Hokke sect inscription on the DaiGohonzon probable refers to the Hokke
>cofraternity that is known to have also existed at this time.
just a shame about all those wooden Nikko Shonin Gohonzon's I've seen then !
Try to think before you post
>7).Neither Nikko, Nichimoku, Nichido nor Nichigyo(nor the other five
>senior disciples) mention the so-called DaiGohonzon although Nichiren Shoshu
>claim that in one letter from both Nikko and Nichimoku, it is mentioned. These
>letters of course, are not in Nikko's or Nichimoku's hand.
The letter you mention is the will of Nikko Shonin and Nichimoku Shonin. I know for a fact that the will of Nikko Shonin has been authenticated as being in his own hand with a signature consistant with that era in his life.
>8).The motive for the creation of the DaiGohonzon seems to be the
>survival of the backwater temple known as Taisekaji. They needed a gimmic to
>attract followers.
The motive for all your lame attempts at debunking the Daigohonzon is jealousy of your priests and insecurity of your members. You don't have the True Object of Worship - so you need to rubbish it.
>9).Camphor doesn't grow on or near Minobu and large objects made of
>Camphor during this time period are unknown.
There is a 1200 year old Camphor tree growing outside a Nichiren Shu temple called Ho-onji near Minobu
>10).Experts believe the Daigohonzon has a planed surface and the planer
>was unknown in Japan before the mid 14th century.
>
> Mark
Again not true. There are many examples of art that have been planed from well before the Daigohonzon. It is interesting that heretics maon that nobody is allowed to closely examine the Daigohonzon, yet "experts" seem to have the authority to make statements like this. Did they sneak into Shohondo late at night ?
It's not often I recommend a Soka Gakkai page - but this one is particularly good :
http://inside.fatnet.net/~ukiyo/khk.html
Refuting Kempon Hokke's Claims Against the Authenticity of The "Wooden Gohonzon for All Humanity (Dai-Gohonzon)"
The following is a categorical refutation of each allegation against the authenticity of the "Wooden Gohonzon for All Humanity (Dai-Gohonzon)".
We will base ourselves mainly upon the 66th High Priest Nittatsu's thoughts. Kempon Hokke's allegations align with those of Bentetsu Yasui, the author of" The Wooden Gohonzon Is a Fabrication (Ita honzon gisaku ron)," who claims the Dai-Gohonzon is counterfeit. Nittatsu's views are excerpted chiefly from his booklet "Refuting 'The Wooden Gohonzon Is a Fabrication'(Ita honzon gisaku ron o hasu)."
Allegation 1: Mandalas written on boards of this type are typical of the Hokke fraternities and Hokke Halls of the Muromachi Period (post 1333).
Rebuttal: In "What Fuji School Believers Should Know (Fuji isseki monto zonchi no koto)," Nikko Shonin writes: "I hear from various people that some disciples of Nichiren Shonin slight his Gohonzons by carving some of them into wooden ones and confer them upon those with no faith. They are Niko, Nitcho, Nisshun and others." Bentetsu Yasui, the author of "The Wooden Gohonzon Is a Fabrication (Ita Honzon Gisaku Ron)," who claims the Dai-Gohonzon is counterfeit, uses the above statement of Nikko's to point out that the second high priest was strict about creating a wooden Gohonzon. However, in the above quotation, we find that Nikko Shonin was strict about conferring the Gohonzon upon non-believers and also that the Daishonin's immediate disciples such as Niko, Nitcho, Nisshun and others employed the method of engraving the Daishonin's original Gohonzons onto wood. This fact indicates that wooden Gohonzons were common during the time of Nikko Shonin long before the Muromachi period, which invalidates the point that the wooden Gohonzon couldn't have existed before the Muromachi period.
Allegation 2: Nikko never mentions this so-called Supreme Mandala.
Rebuttal: In his "Transfer Document to Nichimoku (Nikko ato jojo no koto)," the original of which exists at Taiseki-ji, Nikko Shonin states: "I transfer to Nichimoku the great Gohonzon of the second year of Koan that was entrusted upon myself, Nikko. It should be enshrined at the Honmon-ji temple." "The great Gohonzon of the second year of Koan that was entrusted upon myself, Nikko" obviously signifies the "Wooden Gohonzon Inscribed on October 12, 1279, for All Humanity (Dai-Gohonzon)". The "Honmon-ji temple" in this quote means a building where this particular Gohonzon should be enshrined at the time of kosen-rufu.
Allegation 3: The so-called "Ita Mandara" is allegedly inscribed by Nippo. But he never worked on Minobusan (Mt. Minobu). He only carved a posthumous statue of Nichiren. It is inscribed in camphor wood, which would not have been readily available in the climate of Minobusan.
Rebuttal: A detailed record of how Nichiren Daishonin lived on Mt. Minobu does not exist. We can only know about it through whatever is mentioned in the Gosho and Nikko Shonin's writings. It is commonly acknowledged that Nippo carved a posthumous statue of Nichiren Daishonin.
Nikko Shonin chose to leave Mt. Minobu due to his confrontation with Lord Hakiri, which was caused by the lord's four major slanderous acts. The most significant issue must have been which object of worship should be enshrined at the main hall in the temple on Minobu. Lord Hakiri, while attached to the statue of Shakyamuni, did not regard the Wooden Gohonzon as the true object of worship. He attempted to build a new statute of Shakyamuni and enshrine it as the key object of worship in the main hall. From this we can infer that the Wooden Gohonzon had been enshrined there and also that Lord Hakiri wanted to replace it with a statue of Shakyamuni. After Nikko Shonin sadly left Mt. Minobu with his disciple, Hyakkan-bo, carrying the Wooden Gohonzon on his back, Shakyamuni's statue was enshrined in the main hall at the Minobu temple.
Former High Priest Nittatsu states in his lecture on "Letter to Jakunichi," which he presented at Hokei-ji temple on September 16, 1972:
"Some say that the camphor wood did not grow in Minobu alleging that the weather in Minobu is too cold for this wood to grow. They claim that the camphor grows only in warm areas such as Fuji or Suruga. It is not true, however. There is a temple of the Minobu sect named Ho'on-ji and situated on the road that is close to Mt. Minobu. And even today, a huge camphor tree, which is about 1200 or 1300 years old, is growing in its garden. From this we can safely infer that there could have been a similar 600- or 700-year-old camphor tree on Mt. Minobu during the time of Nichiren Daishonin." (Complete Works of Nittatsu Shonin, Volume 3, No. 2, p. 475)
Allegation 4: Even Hori Nichiko, the most learned Taisekiji priest of this century with access to all the resources of Taisekiji, could not come up with any historical source for "Yashiro Kunishige," the recipient of the Ita Mandara. He writes in his Selected Works of the Fuji School (Fuji shugaku yoshu): "I do not know the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishige."
Rebuttal: In his "Refuting 'The Wooden Gohonzon Is a Fabrication,'" the former high priest, Nittatsu, states: "As long as it is a historical fact that Nichiren Daishonin inscribed this Gohonzon in October 1279, in conjunction with the Atsuhara Incident, there is no doubt that the Daishonin has Atsuhara martyrs in mind as the recipients of this Gohonzon. If we seek to find the name of Yashiro among the Atsuhara farmers in historical records, we can come across several Yashiros among the believers of the Daishonin's time. And Jinshiro and his younger brother Yagoro played a major role in the Atsuhara Incident. In this regard, we can assert that Jinshiro was exactly the very person Nichiren Daishonin meant by Yashiro." (p. 19)
According to Nittatsu, the character jin can be construed to have been used as an honorific expression on behalf of the character ya.
President Toda once wrote from another perspective on this matter:
"Some slanderous people say: 'The recipient of the Dai-Gohonzon is Yashiro Kunishige. But such a person did not exist among the Hokke fraternities.' Some regard him as one of the three Atsuhara martyrs, while others assert that he is a son of Lord Nanjo. However, many agree that it is a fictitious name, which makes sense to me.
"The question is why Nichiren Daishonin chose Yashiro Kunishige as the recipient of the Dai-Gohonzon. You cannot uderstand this question unless you are deeply versed in Buddhism. It does not make sense to those who have not mastered Buddhist views. However, once you fully understand the essence of Buddhism, this riddle becomes an easy question.
"Some wonder: 'Since the Daishonin entrusted the Dai-Gohonzon upon Nikko Shonin, why didn't he choose Nikko Shonin as its recipient?' It is because if Nichiren Daishonin had chosen Nikko Shonin, the Dai-Gohonzon could not be said to have been inscribed for all humanity. The 'Gohonzon for All Humanity' is something that should be conferred upon the person who propagates Nam-myoho-renge-kyo throughout the world and builds a high sanctuary in the future by spreading it first in Japan�.
"In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni talks to Shariputra who is already deceased. He could do so because he was talking to Shariputra within his own life�.
"In a like manner, Yashiro Kunishige represents all those who propagate the Lotus Sutra. In other words, he is Yashiro Kunishige within the life of Nichiren Daishonin. Yashiro Kunishige does not have to denote a historical figure. There is no problem at all even if he did not exist historically.
"It is a scientific approach to examine the matter historically and conclude that things should be this way or that. From a Buddhist perspective, however, since Nichiren Daishonin dedicated the Dai-Gohonzon to Yashiro Kunishige within his own life, Yashiro signifies an ideal individual, an ideal votary of the Lotus Sutra. In this regard, whether he actually existed in the past or not does not matter (Complete Works of Josei Toda, Volume 2, pp. 15-19).
Allegation 5: The handwriting of the "Ita Mandara" is from the third year of Koan (1280), not the second year of Koan, which is the formal date on this mandara (1279). It is quite probable that the forgery was taken from a genuine mandara now at Myokaiji in Numazu near Fuji (Yamanaka, V.1, p. 302, No. 36). The size of the daimoku is consistent with the twelve gohonzons that were made by Nichiren in 1280. The twelve that he made in 1279 are only 5/8th the size of the ones of 1280. Also, the "secret" marks denote April of 1280. Nichiren's gohonzons are all dated in this "secret code" of Nichiren's, perhaps because Nichiren wanted to guard against forgery.
Rebuttal: Since the Dai-Gohonzon is the ultimate Gohonzon that the Daishonin inscribed for all humanity, it can be naturally different in the choice of the size of the characters of daimoku from other Gohonzons inscribed in 1279 for individual believers.
Actually, Myokaiji's mandara is a copy of the Gohonzon Nichiren Daishonin inscribed to his disciple Nikke. Everything written on these two Gohonzons is exactly the same. The only difference between them lies in the signature (kao) of the Daishonin. Myokaiji's mandara shows inconsistency in the stroke of the brush.
The idea of the Daishonin having created the "secret code" in the inscription of the Gohonzon against forgery is indeed far-fetched. It is true that the appearance of the Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren Daishonin went through a gradual evolution. Almost all of the Gohonzons Nichiren Daishonin inscribed were for individual believers who lived apart from one another. It is hard to justify that Nichiren Daishonin had to systematize such individual Gohonzons by creating the "secret code" against forgery.
Allegation 6: It is unlikely that Nichiren would have allowed such an obscure individual as this mysterious Yashiro to be the sponsor of the Kaidan mandala. By analogy with the past, it would have been a ruler of the country. It certainly was not one of the Atsuhara martyrs, for common farmers did not have last names in those days.
Rebuttal: See the rebuttal of allegation # 4.
Allegation 7: The testimony of Nikko not only fails to give any backing to this so-called "Ita Mandara," but on several genuine mandalas Nikko writes his supreme accolade. These are not the original temples of these mandalas, so no one is claiming that possession of the mandaras gives them any status, but it proves that there was more than one Hommonji, according to Nikko, and no single mandala was designated as the only mandala.
Rebuttal: In his "Transfer Document to Nichimoku (Nikko ato jojo no koto)," whose original exists at Taiseki-ji, Nikko Shonin states: "I transfer to Nichimoku the great Gohonzon of the second year of Koan that was entrusted upon myself, Nikko. It should be enshrined at the Honmon-ji temple."
Nikko Shonin uses the expression "It should be enshrined at the Honmon-ji temple" to show to the original Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin the same respect he extended to the Dai-Gohonzon. Still, this does not negate the uniqueness of the Wooden Gohonzon of October 12, 1279, which was inscribed for a specific purpose, that is, the happiness of all humanity.
Allegation 8: The 9th high priest, Nichiu, carved the "Ita Mandara" which had never been seen or heard of. Nichi-jo, head priest of Kitayama Hommonji, a contemporary of Nichiu, reports that, for his sin, Nichiu became a leper for having gone against the fundamental intention of the founder of the temple (Nikko).
Rebuttal: It is a fact that Nichiu had somebody carve a wooden Gohonzon based upon an original Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin. On this copied wooden Gohonzon is Nichiu's signature. It has been housed at the Treasure House of Taiseki-ji. But the Dai-Gohonzon and this copied wooden Gohonzon are two different things. Nichiu reportedly created the above wooden Gohonzon in fear of the possible loss of the Dai-Gohonzon through civil wars that often erupted in those days.
Nichijo's contention that Nichiu died as a leper is based upon the rumor he reportedly heard from a farmer in his neighborhood. Nichijo is known as Nichiu's arch enemy. Since the basis of his contention is mere hearsay, it cannot be legitimately used to justify his point.
Allegation 9: The theme of "On Persecutions Befalling the Buddha" is encouragement of the faithful in the wake of the Atsuhara Persecution. Despite the reference to the attainment for the "fundamental intention for coming forth in this world," it does not have any connection with the so-called "Ita Mandara" which is not mentioned in this letter at all. Taisekiji has used the close date of this letter to back its claims for the date of the Ita Mandala.
Rebuttal: What enabled the Daishonin to fulfill his fundamental purpose behind his advent in this world? At the expense of their lives, the Atsuhara farmers showed actual proof of their solid faith in the Daishonin's teaching. The establishment of their unshakable faith meant the establishment of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism. In other words, by witnessing their true faith, the Daishonin was able to decide upon the inscription of the eternal object of worship for all humanity.
Nichiren Daishonin was paying close attention to the progress of the Atsuhara incident. While respecting the strong faith displayed by the farmers, he heard the news of their martyrdom. Sensing that the time had finally come for him to inscribe the Gohonzon for all humanity, he did so with those farmers' lives in his heart.
Other Allegations 1: In none of the Daishonin's original Gohonzon there are such descriptions as "One who makes offerings will gain good fortune surpassing the [Buddha's] ten honorable titles" and "One who slanders will have his head broken into seven pieces."
Rebuttal: Six of the original Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin have these descriptions. They are:
1) Gohonzon inscribed in August 1278 (housed at Kaicho-ji, Kyoto).
2) Gohonzon inscribed in August 1278 (housed at Honno-ji, Kyoto).
3) Gohonzon inscribed on November 21, 1278 (housed at Kocho-ji, Okamiya).
4) Gohonzon inscribed on February 2, 1279 (housed at Joko-in, Nakayama).
5) Gohonzon inscribed on February 2, 1279 (housed at Juryo-ji, Kuwana)
6) Gohonzon inscribed in July 1279 (housed at Kocho-ji, Okamiya
|
»