The Dai-Gohonzon is one of the calligraphic mandalas (see gohonzon.html) derived from Nichiren's vision of the content of the enlightenment expressed in the "Lifespan" chapter of the Lotus Sutra. It is the mandala of his sect. Generally speaking all of Nichiren's Calligraphic Mandala's are "Dai-Gohonzon" (expecially the larger ones), but Nichiren Shoshu refers to one specific Gohonzon when they refer to the "Dai-Gohonzon."
Though it almost certainly wasn't carved by Nichiren himself, according to it's origin legends, it was carved by Nippo, at the bequest of Nichiren himself (see section below).
However, since the days of Nichiu Shonin first enshrined it as the principle treasure of the Taisekiji branch of the Nichiren Nikko lineage, there has been controversy about it's provenance and origins. For more about the principle behind the Honzon or Gohonzon follow the links. It reflects Fuji School emphasis on exclusive practice to a calligraphic Gohonzon rather than a statue or statue arraingement.
Table of Contents:
- This page
- What is the Dai-Gohonzon?
- Ancient Issues
- Yashiro Kunishigi
- Nippo and the Origin Legend
- Nippo really did Carve things
- Nichiu and it's acquisition
- Modern Issues
- Refusal to Authenticate
- The Kawabe memo
- The Sho-Hondo
- Links and Footnotes
- Within this Website pages
- General Principles about the Gohonzon
- General principles of Objects of Worship
- More on Sho Hondo
- More on the Fuji School,NST, More on Kawabe
- More on Nichiu, Nippo.
- Outside this website:
- Dai-Gohonzon Image?
- Taisekiji homepage
The origin questions about the Dai-Gohonzon since it first "surfaced" as the "Banner" of the Fuji School during the tenancy of the 9th High Priest Nichiu Shonin. resolve into two issues. Whether it was actually carved at Nichiren's behest, and how Nichiu Shonin acquired it. To fully understand these issues requires some research, which I have tried to do to the best of my ability. If anyone has anything that can help with a more objective presentation of these issues, please let me know.
The Dai-Gohonzon purportedly was inscribed in 1279 when Nichiren, pleased at the courage shown by the Atsuhara Martyrs, inscribed a special Gohonzon in 'Sumi Ink' or else, according to legend, charged one Nippo to carve that image into half of a log of camphor wood he had found in a stream at Mt. Minobu.
It was dedicated, not to Nikko or any other priest, but to one "Yashiro Kunishige". The tale that is told is that he created the Dai-Gohonzon after hearing news of the death of Atsuhara Martyrs on October 12 1279 and this is the traditional date of it's carving. The evidence for this is put to a letter to Shijo Kingo Named the "Shonan Gonanji" in which he discusses the persecutions of the villagers of Atsuhara and says:
"The Buddha fulfilled the purpose of his advent in a little over forty years; T'ien-t'ai took about thirty years, and Dengyo, some twenty years. I have repeatedly spoken of the indescribable persecutions they suffered during those years. For me it took twenty-seven years, and the persecutions I faced during this period are well known to you all."
Like many oral legends it is sometimes very hard to track the truth or falsity of the origins of the legend. For instance it would be nice to have a historical record of Yashiro Kunishige. Some stories say that he was a layperson at Atsuhara. When we can find out things that corrobrate a story or at least shed light on that story by showing "traces" that are left by these people we can follow these people to their sources. Without written records, archeological records, or similar hard evidence it is difficult to trace a legend to its origins and decide between competing accounts of events. This is true with Yashiro Kunishigi.
Yashiro Kunishigi was certainly an obscure disciple of Nichiren, though we may never know whether he lived contemporaneously or much later. I suspect he was someone who lived in the area between Mt. Fuji and Kuon-ji simply because the Dai-Gohonzon was given his name. It may be possible to figure out who "Hakkenbo" was, but no one has been able to track down Yashiro Kunishigi. We have some record of Nippo, but none of these now household names.
To me that is part of the Dai-Gohonzon's charm. If Nichiren had intended it to be the "template" for all Gohonzon and the only valid Gohonzon of any Nichiren Sect, he might have said so more explicitly. Instead he seems to have kept this a secret from all but his one most trusted disciple. Since this is very strange, it argues that the legend developed over time and doesn't come from Nichiren's person himself, but from the role that that Gohonzon would play for the Fuji School. If he had indeed inscribed that on the Dai-Gohonzon and named some more famous person, such as Nikko, we would know that this Gohonzon was meant to be the principle object of worship for the school. And indeed Nichiren did create a number of Gohonzon with generalized inscriptions similar to those of the Dai-Gohonzon.
Instead the message of the combination of the oral legend and the record is:
"This Gohonzon should be for all mankind and I've given it to someone you will never know who is."It's like the tomb of the unknown soldier, if we know who it belongs to it looses it's value for all those "unknowns" we don't know. When they identify a body in that tomb, they have to remove it from the tomb. Consequently like many other such relics, The Dai-Gohonzon, even if it were a fraud from Nichiren has the faith and effort of millions of believers behind it. There are tales of ordinary Ashes becoming the "Buddha's Ashes" because of the belief of people, so it is that even if the Dai-Gohonzon were a fraud from Nichiu, it has been validated by centuries of belief as a legitimate transmission from Nichiren.
The Dai-Gohonzon itself is inscribed with "This Gohonzon is inscribed for the salvation of all mankind (Ichien Budai)", and those in the sect of Nichiren Shoshu are rightly proud of it's uniqueness and unique role. It is referred to in the Gosho the "Jogyo Shoden-sho" in the following lines:
note, I'm still looking for a translation of the Jogyo Shoden Sho"Nippo wanted to carve a statue of Nichiren. He Prayed to Shichimen Daimyojiu. Was it a response to his prayers? He found a log floating in [the river].
Unfortunately the Jogyo Shoden-Sho is one of those many Gosho that most people think are "pious forgeries (apocryphal).
Bruce Maltz [actually his wife] did some research on this and writes:
"In the Biography of Nippo it says that, 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 Daishonin (9 cm.) tall....The plank Honzon and statues are now at Fuji....
Unfortunately, this Gosho is more than likely a forgery.1"
Bruce is not an objective observer due to his conflicts with one group after another, but he was the first one to raise what turned out to be genuine concerns about the provenance of the Dai-Gohonzon, at least in respect to its official origin legend. Prior to it becoming public knowledge with the publication of the kawabe.html, any mention of any questions about the Dai-Gohonzon was likely to be shouted down with charges that simply to question the Dai-Gohonzon was slander of the law and "evil."
The priest Nippo can be verified to have existed and is listed as one of Nichiren's second ranking disciples, and perhaps this is the one referred to. I suspect a "Nippo" did carve the Dai-Gohonzon. Unfortunately we may never have hard proof that that Nippo did so in fact.
The oral legend is that the Dai-Gohonzon was at Minobu until Nikko left there, and when he did one "Hyakkan-bo" (one of his disciples) carried it on his back to Taisekiji where it remained there-after. Nippo himself seems to have stayed with Nikko Shonin during the dispute between him and Niko Shonin that started the move of the Fuji School to Mt. Fuji. Nippo, however is too enigmatic to be claimed as sole property for the Fuji School.
While Nippo followed Nikko Shonin to the Fuji area, he also seems to have been home-based both at the Temple at Shichimen-san and in Kamakura itself. He is listed as the founder of the Temple "Rykoji" in Kamakura4. This Temple also serves as a shrine to Nichiren's persecution at Tatsunokuchi. The Shichimen Temple is half way between Minobu and Taisekiji, and pilgrims, expecially women, make regular pilgrimages to the top of Mt. Shichimen in order to defy an ancient proscription on their doing so, assert their enlightenment, and thus show their faith in Nichiren Buddhism. It is a lovely feminist tradition of the Nichiren Shu.
More-over if you research the history of all the early Nichiren Schools, you find that he and other priests, who had the ability to, all were busy carving "odaimoku tablets", as well as various statues, subsequent to Nichiren's death. These Odaimoku tablets varied from "transcriptions" of existing Gohonzon into the more durable wood, to entire reproductions of Gohonzon, to simple "Odaimoku tablets" with just the inscription of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo down the middle. Some are in stone, and all are striking as both objects of reverence and objects of art.For instance, This temple, built on the site of Nichiren's near execution, has a carved Wooden tablet (tablet) and a shrine to Shichimen Daimyojiu with a carved statue. And Nichiro himself is also credited with carving Odaimoku Tablets. In fact Nikko complained against the practice of destructively copying paper Gohonzon into wood ones.
The disciples would also carve statues of various important people, and Nichiren Shoshu isn't the only group that claims an "Odaimoku Tablet" as its central object of worship. And the Dai-Gohonzon is not the only "Odaimoku Tablet" attributed to Nichiren himself. There is an "Odaimoku Tablet" enshrined at Kosoku-ji Temple, the principle object of worship, that is claimed to have been "inscribed" by Nichiren himself, purportedly while he was in exhile on Sado Island. The statement "I have inscribed my life in Sumi Ink" seems to have indeed been uttered in the spirit of "Snow Mountain Boy."
One can also add that there has been a prejudice against wooden Gohonzon as somehow not having the "Tamashi"(spirit) of the original calligrapher. However, if one person planed it and then it was painted -- that would neatly solve that conundrum. So while this issue may have also been tied to some prejudice against carved Objects of Worship as well as prejudices against the chutzpah of the tiny Fuji School and its universal object of faith. That doesn't mean that the Dai-Gohonzon doesn't come from Nichiren or his immediate disciples. It is entirely possible that it is not a complete fake.
The central problem in post Nichiren Japan is that the people in general, and many of the priests in particular, had trouble avoiding "reifying" the object of worship and differentiating between buddhist ideas and the hodgepodge of beliefs that surrounding them. That is people tended to see the world around them as if spiritual things actually existed with the ability to talk to them or interact with them. I feel that this might have been Nikko Shonin's complaint in his remonstrations against the other priests. Reifying the Object of worship doesn't seem to have been the intent behind the creating of the Dai-Gohonzon. Rather memorializing it and preserving it seems to have been the purpose instead. Wood lasts. Paper is ephemerol. It probably doesn't matter whether or not Nichiren actually carved any of these items -- so long as they transmit his spirit perfectly.
So perhaps Nippo might have carved a Wood Gohonzon, and even might have done so literally at the behest of Nichiren, or with his approval, as described in the aforementioned Gosho. The story in the Gosho might have been written down to memorialize an old legend based on truth. Both of which provide circumstantial support for the origin legend as recorded in the possibly apocryphal Gosho mentioned above. If so that would explain both why Nichiren Shu might be wrong about the Dai-Gohonzon, and why the Nichiren Shoshu doesn't pursue that explaination.
Don Ross has built a web-page to Shichimen Daimyojiu [caution he has images of Gohonzon behind statues there, which is something you might not like]. Since Nippo is said to have prayed to Shichimen in the reference to him in the possibly apocryphal work, "Jogyo Shoden Sho", it seems likely that Nippo may well have lived at the Mountain Shichimen for a time and also travelled extensively. All of Nichiren's disciples were very active. Who knows maybe he carved it there. It has a spectacular view of Mt. Fuji, and is also a short distance away from Kuon-ji. When one is dealing with oral records it isn't wise to do anything but accept them for what they are, but not rely on them too much. The Nippo who founded the temple in 1337, probably is the same one listed as one of the second generation of Nichiren's disciples in another work5
The first explicit reference to the Dai-Gohonzon that can't be explained away as a reference to one of Nichiren's many paper Dai-Honzon, occured during the period of High Priest Nichiu (9th High Priest)[for more on him click the link]. He is alleged to have "forged" the Dai-Gohonzon by some in other sects. The records say he had to buy it back (he had to buy back the entire temple after he had been swindled by his own deputy priests) from a Hokkeko fraternity another priest had sold it to. He is the one who first talked about the Dai-Gohonzon in his writings. Other writings referring to "Dai-Honzon" tend to turn out to be talking about paper Dai-Honzon, which Nichiren had inscribed for each of his disciples. Some of these are still around. He did leave the temple and disappear later in life. According to Nichiren Shoshu he died on the other side of Mt. Fuji and there is an allegation that he caught leprosy. But both pro and con are in the realm of "myth and legend" and very difficult to pin down with documentation of any sort. There is a 10 point argument attacking the validity of the DaiGohonzon, some of which points can be refuted easily, but others can only be dealt with by acknowledging that their truth (or falsity) is in the realm of faith.3
The claims and counterclaims of the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon would seem to be an ancient issue, but really they are more modern issues than ancient ones. This is mostly because the Fuji School claimed to be the "one true sect" of Nichiren's teachings when it was united as Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai, and that claim has come back to haunt my Sokagakkai. Both the Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, both claim that Nichiren was referring to the Dai-Gohonzon when he referred to offerings given him at Minobu.citation. and they claim that the Dai-Gohonzon is mentioned in Nikko's transfer document to Nichimoku, though there is some argument about that. This is because the Gohonzon mentioned in that document is still extent and is one of Nichiren's authenticated 120 or so Gohonzon.
These issues were dealt with as best they could be by the early Sokagakkai in a famous debate with Nichiren Shu. Nichiren Shu took the early issues about the Dai-Gohonzon and insisted that it not only wasn't from Nichiren's hand as claimed, but was an abject forgery. They used this as part of their claim that the Fuji School couldn't possibly be the "One True Sect of Nichiren's Buddhism" and that they therefore were the highest ranking sect of Nichiren's Buddhism on account of having Kuon-ji, Rissho University, and the most members prior to the rise of the Sokagakkai. The early Gakkai was able to prove that this Nippo could have found camphor wood in the minobu days (indeed they found camphor trees on one of the Minobu head temple grounds. And indeed, if you visit various Nichiren Shu Temples in the Kamakura area, you'll find an
But they were never able to substantially refute all of the allegations because basically the origins of the Dai-Gohonzon have the quality of "legend." Even so they claim they won the debate because they did establish that the Dai-Gohonzon could have been from Nichiren, which is enough to give life to the oral history and legend. There are few documents that valorize the notion that Nichiren intended the Dai-Gohonzon to be any sort of "Ur-Gohonzon" from which all Gohonzon derive their kechimyaku.. That particular set of doctrines requires some creative thinking and interpretation of his writings, and is solely a "conceit" of the sect. [After all teachers who claim a teacher should be true disciples of that teacher!]. To "prove" more clearly that the Dai-Gohonzon is genuine would take a team of authenticators, modern science, and then probably wouldn't satisfy all doubters (or worse would "prove" that it was indeed a later creation).
The late 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. 473)"
Nichiren shoshu, NST, has traditionally waffled about authenticating, not just the Dai-Gohonzon but most of their treasures. They possess genuine Nichiren artifacts, but because of this refusal, people outside of their sect sometimes allege that they don't have any. They take the position that their relics are so sacred and priceless that people of no faith (read: scholars) shouldn't be allowed to touch them and examine them. Even if it were in the interest of faith and honesty. Indeed taking the initiative to analyze the Dai-Gohonzon scientifically would entail the risk that it turn out not to be what it is claimed to be. Yet with modern methods Nichiren Shoshu could authenticate it's treasures with no harm to them at all. This is one of the anachronistic attitudes that is getting in the way of them entering the 20th century and preventing a full reconciliation with "Other Nichiren groups" or with the SGI. Because no one has properly (professionally) analyzed the Dai Gohonzon there is always a cloud of suspicion over claims generated from Taiseki-ji and people are forced to make their choices on "faith." This may seem logical to people raised in the West on specious claims of Messiah's rising from the dead, but Buddhism has always been based on a more rigorous logic.(See literal.html
And we American's still have no clue of what the whole story is. For instance, a group of SGI members went to Japan to "refute" Bruce Maltz. They found that the temple there ("Myomanji") didn't have their attitude towards the Gohonzon. It enshrined Gohonzon and statues together. This offended the pilgrims, but should come as no surprise with anyone familiar with the past 750 years of Nichirenism. Even the Fuji School has statues with its Gohonzon. These would be authenticators found an ancient picture of Nichiren inscribing a "Dai-Honzon" on a scroll and figured it was an image of Nichiren inscribing "the" Dai-Gohonzon. They assumed that this "Dai-Honzon" had to be the Dai-Gohonzon. But the fact is that Nichiren inscribed many "Dai-Honzon" for his followers, expecially his Priest followers, and this Gohonzon would have been one of them. They are all "Dai-Honzon". (See this link: http://members.aol.com/myomanji/visit/fujufuse.htm) See this link for more on the Gohonzon. Bruce has since that time dropped out of the sect creation business (good for him).
The only one alleged to have attempted to validate the Dai-Gohonzon, or one of it's "sisters", purportedly did such an amateurish job that he himself caused controversy when what he did was revealed to the public. A memo called the Kawabe memo surfaced in the hands of the Gakkai. (Purportedly stolen, but I suspect was leaked by priests aghast at it's contents). In this memo there are brief notes pertaining to the conclusions of one "A" purportedly regarding the Dai Gohonzon. President Akiya responded to this memo with a scathing attack on the priesthood, since this memo appears to be Nikken "slandering" the Dai Gohonzon by examining it and concluding that "Gohonzon in Sanctuary is faked." However, the priesthood have responded with a number of official and unofficial responses. Reverend Kawabe responded with an apology and explaination, and Nichiren Shoshu responded with an official response. They try to explain that the faked Gohonzon was a Gohonzon carved as a backup to the Dai-Gohonzon in case it were ever lost. There is some support for this in a refutation done earlier by Nikken's predecessor Nittatsu Shonin. See this link for more on that refutation.
Unfortunately, no matter how Nichiren Shoshu dances around it, the memo does not seem to refer to the Gohonzon in the possession of Honmon-ji, but to the one that the High Priest claims to protect. The writing is ambiguous enough but it seems to be referring to the Dai-Gohonzon. Since the memo appeared at a time when there were court battles about the Dai-Gohonzon the circumstantial evidence is pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a gullible true believer in NST doctrines. To me the problem isn't that the Dai-Gohonzon was examined but that the High Priest tried to do it himself. To me this is a kind of arrogant behavior. It's also a bit timid. If I had faith in something that old and venerable I'd want it examined and the results shared with everybody. There are other issues with that memo, but we can leave them for the page concerning it at this link: kawabe.html. But if he did indeed declare it a "fake" as he is alleged to have done just two months before becoming High Priest -- that is simply the height of bad faith.
The Sho-Hondo was a building built to house the Dai-Gohonzon. Controversy around it is a subject of it's own. It is being replaced with a building called the "Hoando" to avoid the big fight over it's name that the old appellation caused. See shohondo.html for more on this building.
I personally believe that whether or not Nichiren actually had anything directly to do with the Wooden Gohonzon called the Dai-Gohonzon and kept at Taisekiji is an issue that should be dealt with honestly but isn't as important as it seems when you look at it from the point of view of Buddhism. There is a story of a woman whose faith "turned ordinary ashes into the 'Buddha's ashes.' And there is a story which Nichiren himself often quoted. The story of "Snow Mountain Boy" (Sessen Doji). Snow Mountain boy was willing to give his life to preserve the Dharma. But first he wrote what he learned on rocks and trees, everywhere. Nichiren would have wanted to preserve his Dai-Gohonzon (the Vision behind the physical object) -- and a wood inscription would be the best way to do this. The Dai-Gohonzon meets the "Snow Mountain Boy" test. If he didn't carve one, the person who did it was acting to fulfil his will. Maybe someday my argument will be the official one.
I created this page to tie together some of the different claims and maybe add a comment or two. It is still under construction. Any comments or suggested links would be welcome. I'm trying not to gore anyones ox too much, but to simply present the facts (and of course my own opinions about what those facts mean). see nstissue.html
Please note, I'm not footnoting (for now) everything that I have links to other pages for. Also I'm going to have to redo this page because some of the sources have disapeared into the ethernet.