All religions have some sort of "Object of Worship," or symbol of what people venerate. In the West such Object of Worships are frequently a source of paradox, confusion, or fear, since most western religion operates under the principle "Thou shalt not make Graven Images." Buddhism, Hinduism, and the religions of the east never operated under that principle. Consequently they have often been even more confused about religion, adopting as "honzon" all sorts of things from Gods or Demons to statues of the Buddha. Not understanding religion or its purpose people tend to be confused about the "object of worship" both in the sense of ones personal goals and targets of practice and belief, and in the literal sense of what to worship. We humans tend to "reify" the Buddha, "God", and indeed all things that are divine or useful in our lives.
It is difficult to comprehend the incomprehensible with the mind of a (limited) common mortal. And the multiplicity of beliefs and ikons for those beliefs led to confusion and moral drift in "pagan" communities. Because the issue of the correct "object of worship" is a universal issue. It has been as much a problem for the west as it has been everywhere else. The solution that the Jewish people came up with was arrogating all of divine power and mystery to a single entity and then insisting that this divine entity was incomprehensible to human understanding. It was "one" and "undivided." They prohibited the use of imaged "objects of worship" of any form or shape ("No graven images.") The purpose of this was probably to end the superstitious or selfish use of religion and prayer, and to try to move people to adopt the authority of a single omniscient and omnipresent "God." It also was a realization that the old "gods" were mostly myth and that they were often misused by charlatans. Unfortunately most people believed in these multiple gods, and the "gods" were closer to them than a mysterious "high god" who was ineffable and unreachable. Indeed among the Semites "El" had been a "Father God" all along and people had preferred to pray to his "son" Ba'al, who was a more reachable "God" or to the Goddess (Asherah). You see echos of this in Christian worship of the "Son of God" Jesus, or "Mother Mary." Both are reversions to elements of the theology of the Ancient Israelites which was opposed by the Yahwist priests.
Consequently, the early history of Judaism was that its early teachers came in conflict with this paganism. Both without in the form of persecution, and within in the form of a strong tendancy to "divide the divine" (trinities or godheads) or to "reify the Divine" (Images, saints, Gods, or turning human beings into manifestations of God). The failure to resolve these issues was often "solved" by some individual or top of a hierarchy setting itself as the authority on the subject and making some sort of "fiat" decision. The result is that the belief in one God, while better than belief in multiple superstions, has failed to solve human suffering.
Buddhism started out by "skirting" the whole issue of Gods. It was started by a Kshatrya class (warrior class) prince, and he left the theology to the Brahmins and concentrated on how to free oneself from suffering and reach enlightenment. One doesn't see much reliance on "Gods" or even petitionary prayer in early Buddhism. The Buddha skirted the whole subject. And indeed the practice of Buddhism has been to adapt itself to the religious beliefs of "host countries." This practice was to be known as "Zuiho Bini."
Buddhism didn't start out reifying even the Buddha. Rather the "object of devotion" was attaining Buddhahood. When one believed in Buddhism, one followed the words of Buddhism because they -- in fact were true -- not merely because one had faith that they were in fact true. And if they weren't one needed to embrace the truth even if it put one at odds with what others said Buddha said. Buddha images came into Buddhism by way of the Greeks. Early Buddhists depicted a "man who was not there," often using a non-image to depict the Buddha. For the ascetic, mystical, monastic Buddhists who entered monasteries and took vows, the exact way that the "Honzon" was depicted was often simply a "means" to developing penetrating insight and understanding. But with respect to the common people, it was often simple enough to let them worship the Buddha's "relics" and later images of Buddha or of imaginary Buddhas such as Amida or Medicine King. People often reverenced the Buddha himself to the point where they prayed to him like he was a God. Initially Buddhism tried to forbid such worship, but Buddhism was taught with the principle of respecting local custom. It couldn't stop people from superstitiously praying to Demons, Gods, or the Buddha himself. It was enough that the common people were taught to reverence the "Three Treasures" of the Sangha (Community), the Dharma(Law), and the Buddha(Awakened one). And the Sangha was often identified exclusively with the monastic community. The people were not expected to "wake up" and become Buddhas in this life time. They could only hope to become Buddhas in some future life.
Of course this discussion can't do justice to the long history of Buddhism in this world without saying that this very lack of a specific "object of worship" was a deliberate consequence of the Buddhas insistance that each of us work out our own salvation without relying on heros, dogmas, Gods, or any outside force. We need to rely on the Dharma and our own inner awakening seeking the help of teachers, teachings, in our own efforts, but not pausing if they serve as a hindrance rather than a help. As the teacher Nichiren said in his Gosho "Repaying Debts of Gratitude:
If one hopes to learn and master Buddhism, then one cannot do sowithout devoting time to the task. And if one wants to have time to spend on the undertaking, one cannot continue to wait on one's parents, one's teachers,and one's sovereign. Until one attains the road that leads to emancipation,one should not defer to the wishes and feelings of one's parents and teachers,no matter how reasonable they may be,More readings: http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/papers/paper_sethia2.pdf
The major influence on my own life has been the teachings of an iconic monk named Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in thirteenth century Japan. Why a 13th century Japanese monk should be listened to about Buddhism or anything is a question whose answers are sometimes surprising. But the truth is this was a remarkable individual with a remarkable "take" on Buddhism. To the point where some people forget that he was a thirteenth century monk. Nichiren gave the world a unique "Honzon" called the Gohonzon. This Gohonzon was a mandala, but unlike other mandalas, instead of being circular the symbols on it were organized into, as Daniel Montgomery said in his "Fire in the Lotus" "marching order." At the time that he taught, most ordinary people and many monks, preferred to use "Statues" for their meditation attempts. Mandalas were an adjunct, but were rarely an "exclusive" object of worship. Most Japanese, at least, preferred to relate to some sort of personalized or "reified" object of worship. To the point where many temples preferred enshrining tutelary Gods or even reformed demons such as "Shichimen" or "Kishimojin" as their object of worship. Nichiren gave people the Gohonzon, though he used other objects as well, including a small statue which he would place under his Gohonzon.
After Nichiren died, the majority of Nichiren Schools seem to have completely ignored the Gohonzon or identified it with statue arrangements and at the very least permitted and sometimes even encouraged people to reify the Buddha. But the Fuji School, and a few other schools, developed Nichiren's own teachings to include "exclusive worship" of the calligraphic mandala along with exclusive chanting of the title of the Lotus Sutra. The Taisekiji/Nichiren Shoshu branch of the Fuji School even went so far as to postulate a God-like "Dai-Gohonzon" with the power to endow other gohonzon with "power" to benefit people's lives. This went along with a Pope Like High priest.
The Soka Gakkai at first taught this Gohonzon teaching exactly as Nichiren Shoshu wanted them too, until in 1991 when they began rebelling against that pope-like high priest. They are now trying to redefine the meaning of "Honzon" within their own school. However, it was this idea of "exclusive use of the scroll mandala" that had been the genius of the Fuji School, and it would be a shame if that innovation would be lost.
Similarly, groups such as the Rissho Koseikei have also had to deal with confusion about the object of worship. This is an important subject. The lack of wisdom about the "Object of worship" has caused untold misery over the centuries. And the meaning of the "Gohonzon" is something we can explore in more depth:
- For more on the Gohonzon follow this link:
- Gohonzon
- Dai Gohonzon
- Nichirenism