Talk:Nichiren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nichiren article.
Please place responses after the whole comment you're responding to. Thanks.

Because of their length, previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Contents

[edit] Interschool Legitimacy Disputes (2)

[edit] Addition of section "No known documentary evidence by Nichiren that he inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon"

The addition of this section is a good way to deal with this issue (different interpretations of the Dai-Gohonzon) because it lets the article present both views. Good move...

But the section needs more work.

First, I think you should remove the loaded language—stuff like "...Nichiren never once refers..." and "Such a contention defies reason in light of the fact...", etc.) As it stands, this section reads more like you are arguing a point to which you are emotionally commited than presenting an alternative perspective for an encyclopedic article.

Second, you need to tighten the prose a bit, as well as say who it is who has come to the conclusions you allude to (i.e., that there is no evidence—remember, NS and others claim that there is evidence, and how to interpret the passage in "On Persecutions Befalling the Sage" (聖人御難事) referring to Nichiren's fulfillment of his mission is only one of them). Also, remember that you claim above that most authorities on this matter think in a certain way, but you fail to name them.

Finally, I think it would be a good idea if you registered as a contributor, and read and observed the conventions for making contributions.

Also, a point of contention:

  • "Nichiren Shoshu tradition holds that the execution of three followers whose heroic loyalty and devotion to faith apparently did not even warrant the briefest mention..."
The Nichiren Shoshu tradition holds no such thing. Be more careful in your choice of words: that "the execution of three followers...apparently did not even warrant the briefest mention" is someone else's conclusion, not Nichiren Shoshu's. If "apparently" is supposed to modify "holds", then it would be better if you reworded this "apparrently holds" to make it more obvious that you are (re)stating an opinion, not a fact. But inasmuch as it is an opinion (that reads like an accussation), it might not belong in Wikipedia.

Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I originated this section. I am learning how Wikipedia works. I've taken your suggestions and amended the text accordingly. Thanks. --Faith Likewater 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"Today there are people who have faith...and others that tend to discard [it]...." I look forward to your commentary - R--70.21.220.149 04:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should take your contemptuous remarks elsewhere, especially when you don't even show the courtesy of identifying yourself. Jim_Lockhart 04:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, it wasn't meant in a negative way at all! I was just referencing a line from the Gosho. Faith's name reminded me of it, and made me smile, and wonder what more s/he will have to say. I was actually trying to express my joy and appreciation for him/her. It also reminded me to have more faith myself, and to always "trust in the strategy of the lotus sutra" which I tend to forget. I guess I was too cryptic. Anyway, this is Ruby. (I thought you knew me by now.) - R --141.153.236.128 03:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Ruby and Jim. Don't know if I have much more to say on this topic. Or if I will contribute more to Wikipedia in general. But I might. I wrote this article because I discovered in Nichiren's writings some information that I thought was important. Thanks again. --Faith Likewater 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I hope you will. I would like to hear more about what you thought was important. And you might also be interested in the discussions on Daisaku Ikeda and SGI as well. Peace. - Ruby--151.198.23.150 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Gosho and references to the Dai-Gohonzon

Hi Ruby. What I thought was important was that I could not find any references to the Dai Gohonzon in Nichiren's writings, yet this object was said by Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai to be the very foundation of his teachings. I found it strange that, since Nichiren wrote so extensively and clearly on his teachings, he would not mention this most important element of them at least once. Based on scouring Nichiren's teachings as relayed in the WND and Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, questioning national-level Buddhist study leaders and on the simple admission of WND editors that Nichiren's "sole allusion" to this object existed in a document that does not appear to me to be about the Gohonzon at all (at least not directly--one could say that ALL his teachings are about the Gohonzon, or fundamental Law), I concluded that he simply didn't inscribe it. And if that's the case, as a Nichiren Buddhist, I thought it was extremely important to clarify what the founder actually taught. My view is that in light of the fact that the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu are currently in disagreemnt about doctrinal matters, each one of us needs to be fully aware of what Nichiren actually taught--even though gaining this awareness may disrupt our sensibilities for a while since, not necessarily due to anyone's bad intentions, we may have received misinformation that has continued to be transmitted over the course of centuries.
As far as the discussions on the SGI and Daisaku Ikeda goes, I may check them out, but can't say for sure. It was the particular matter I wrote about that I really felt the need speak on. Hope you're enjoying Thanksgiving if you celebrate it. Going offline now to head over to relatives. --Faith Likewater 20:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, now, that IS interesting! That just changes everything, doesn't it? Tell me more...
I checked and it comes up in the SGI Dictionary of Terms, but you're right - it deosn't appear in any of the writings. When/where did this first appear? Do you know? Thanks for the holiday greetings - I hope you enjoyed your visit as well. - Ruby--67.97.160.165 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanksgiving was one of the best for me in a long time! Thank you.
>When/where did this first appear?.

[edit] When/where did this [mention of the Dai-Gohonzon] first appear?

Do you mean when/where did the Dai Gohonzon first appear? If not, please clarify your question. If that is what you mean, the only source I could find for when the Dai Gohonzon first appeared was Nichiren Shu. There may be others, but my research was limited to WND, Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, The Untold History of the Fuju School, SGI study leaders and the Internet. According to Nichiren Shu (an Internet source: http://la.nichirenshu.org/history/history.htm), the Dai Gohonzon appeared during the tenure of 9th High Priest Nichiu, whom the Soka Gakkai refers to as one of the "Restorers of the Fuju School". There was reportedly a long dispute over land (and other matters, maybe--need to check on that). There was back and forth over which school was the most legit--the one based on Nikko's lineage or others. And during Nichiu's tenure the Dai Gohonzon showed up presumably as a way of settling the issue in a definitive way. I've contributed an article about what coming across this information has meant personally to me under the pen name Hope Evers here:

http://www.fortunechildbooks.com/wisdom/quest.htm and expanded on the information I submitted to Wikipedia here: http://www.fortunechildbooks.com/wisdom/daigohonzon.htm

As I said, mainly I simply think it's extremely important to stick to what Nichiren really taught in all matters related to his school, but especially when it comes to the very foundation of his teachings. As I stated above, Nichiren's voluminous and detailed writings themselves provide the most compelling evidence that he did not inscribe the Dai Gohonzon, since he never mentions it even once. And when one closely examines the one writing in which he is said to have mentioned it, one finds that the letter does not seem to be about the Gohonzon at all, let alone about the most high Gohonzon.

Because I believe the spiritual realm is what moves the world (as in Buddhism is the body, life is the shadow), as a Nichiren Buddhist I think being clear about what Nichiren really taught is crucial right now given the critical global climate (political, social and geological) and the realities of the situation between Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai.

Take care. --Faith Likewater 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and you did answer my question. I totally agree with you on many points, and I'd be interested to know more about this. I'll check out your links tomorrow night. Frankly, I am of the mind that Nichiren and Shakyamuni said it all, and I do think Makiguchi, Toda and Ikeda, and some of the priesthood get it too. I think the Dai Gohonzon confuses things (this is strictly my uneducated intuitive-feeling way of seeing things, though). And frankly, while SGI leaders would probably gringe at what I am about to say, I also think that SGI will be better off once it breaks free of all that. I think the greatest lesson we got was not to let dogma and doctrine, politics and power, deter us or sway us from what is right, and that is all. We are standnig on a great precipice in which the entire discourse can be chaged, and with it, our way of life, relating, living and dying. These works can be a tremendous inspiration, guide and insight -- as lons as we avoid the age old temptation to let ego, doctrine, "authority" imaginary images of status and power corrupt us. Anyway, my 2 cents...waiting to hear more....Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

>I also think that SGI will be better off once it breaks free of all that.

Me too, Ruby. IMHO "better off" is an understatement. I think "breaking free" is at the crux of the matter in terms of our direction and potential be fully realized beings. I know this is true for me personally.

--Faith Likewater 16:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Liked your article. I am right there with you. My question to you - since this is said to have happened in the 1400s, how do you interpret the WND editors and SGIs relationship to this? I mean, do you think they have simply accepted the story because they accepted Nichiren Shoshu? Or are there leaders within SGI who are cognizant of this, and continue to support it? Or are there those (leadership, in particular) who have or are raising this question? Have you read much of Toda or Makiguchi? Or Ikeda for that matter? I wonder if they have much to say about the Dai Gohonzon...? Just off the top of my head, when you raised the point, I know I have heard and read quite a bit about the Gohonzon, but now that I think of it, I'm not so sure I've really heard much about the Dai Gohonzon from anyone, really. I can't say that I've heard much about it at all, except for when people are discussing the NSA days, and the whole destruction of that building, (senior moment! name escapes me!) etc. What do you think? - R--71.250.88.213 04:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi R. (are you Ruby?),

Faith here. Regarding your questions/comments:

I think, since the tradition regarding the Dai Gohonzon began a few hundred years before the Soka Gakkai was founded and the tradtion subsequently became imbedded in Nichiren Shoshu, that both the post-1400s NS priests and all those who evolved from them (including Mr. Makiguchi and the Soka Gakkai) were brought up on and passed along information that I now believe to be false.

My personal view, based on the sources I named previously, is that the intention behind the creation of the Dai Gohonzon was not diabolical and may well have been good. However, the result is that the Nichiren's teachings have been removed from their true meaning, which is not good.

The Dai Gohonzon still exists in the liturgy books SGI members use everyday. I don't know if it so exists in NS liturgy books--does it? Also, SGI study materials still refer to it, including the relatively new Buddhist dictionary. I believe the latest study exam material did as well (called the Buddhist Learning Review). When new members join the SGI, they inherit this information from their sponsors and study materials. Although I have noticed a great reduction in references to its importance over the past decade and an increase in references to the Gohonzon alone, the Dai Gohonzon and its accompanying mythology (inscription on Oct. 12, 1279/fulfillment of Nichiren's life purpose/inspired by the Atsuhara martyrs) still lives in the SGI.

Regarding SGI leaders: None of them has directly told me that they know for a fact that the Dai Gohonzon was not inscribed by Nichiren. However, none of them has told me that they know for a fact that it was inscribed by him, or by someone working on his behalf, either.

I think that until an official SGI statement is made regarding the Dai Gohonzon, SGI leaders who are employed by the organizatioin do not feel that they are not in a position to make statements refuting its validity. --Faith Likewater 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can answer some of the questions here: Yes, the Dai-Gohonzon is mentioned in the NS liturgy book, as it was in the old one SG/SGI used. The second prayer, specifically, is dedicated to expressing appreciation for the Dai-Gohonzon, which is also why (in NS tradition) the whole Juryohon is recited in gongyo for that prayer.
The notion that the Dai-Gohonzon was not inscribed by Nichiren Daishonin started, I believe, with Nichiju of the Kempon Hokke Sect (Myoman-ji in Kyoto), sometime in the 15th century (writing from memory here, so don't hold me to this).
First mention of the Dai-Gohonzon is hard to pin down because of all the accusations of different writings being inauthentic. In other words, it all depends on whom you [want to] believe. Nikko Shonin mentions it as the "Dai-Gohonzon of 1279 entrusted to my care" or something to that effect in his Nikko-ato Jojo no Koto of November 1332, but of course those who want to negate the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon will say that this document is a fake.
This is more than just an NS/SG/SGI thing, it's a Japanese thing. Don't get me wrong—I'm not putting the Japanese down—but in Japan, people often declare old documents authentic or inauthentic because the content agrees with their preconceptions, not because they have subjected the documents to some sort of rigorous research. If you study this stuff enough yourself, you'll hit upon this sort of thing in Japanese history, right down to things like the Imperial family. (Actually, European history isn't much different.)
I have not read enough of Makiguchi's works to know, but Toda almost always mentions the Dai-Gohonzon. He also frequently mentions maintaining respect for the priesthood and the head temple, regardless of what disagreements my arise; and he called the Soka Gakkai a "cart for gathering up deluded people and taking them to the Dai-Gohonzon." (I'll see if I can find the exact source and wording for you, but I have to dig the book out of a closet.) For these reasons alone, I'm sure you will never see Toda's complete works appear in English, unless some idependent scholor puts them out.
As for the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon, this is an argument that's been going on for at least 500 years and maybe even 700. We are not going to resolve it.
I hope I don't sound too cynical, but I advise caution with information people or organizations are supplying, regardless of their stance or "what side" they're on. I am certain that organizations are more interested in being thought right than they are in being right. The might not lie to you, but they certainly will tell you only what they want you to know or believe. In other words: We're on our own, kids; we have to make a decision ourselves and be satisfied with the consequences.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia is really not the place to be having these discussions. Best regards to all, Jersey_Jim 09:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

You Said: "Meanwhile, Wikipedia is really not the place to be having these discussions."

It seems to me that this Wikipedia discussion page about Nichiren is a highly suitable place to discuss information related to him that appears on this site. Can you elaborate on your view?

You said: "but I advise caution with information people or organizations are supplying...We're on our own, kids; we have to make a decision ourselves and be satisfied with the consequences."

As for me, I looked to Nichiren's writings to discern whether or not the Dai Gohonzon was created by him. The few other sources I named supplemented that search, but were not the main focus of it. Nichiren's writings themselves were and remain my primary source of information about his teachings. As I stated in my article, it was on those writings that I based my conclusion that he did not create the Dai Gohonzon.--Faith Likewater 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Faith. First, my elaboration. I have to admit that "these discussions" is rather ambiguous. I was not referring to discussions of the article content, but to the repetitious outpourings of personal feelings (although, I have to admit, I've been guilty of it too).
  • Note: When I write article, I'm referring to the whole article on Nichiren, not just those sections that I have worked on. I believe it advisable to be unambiguous in our word choices, lest we create more confusion that necessary.
As for your quest for the truth about the Dai-Gohonzon: I realize that you look to Nichiren's writings, which is fine—it's certainly not something I want to discourage you from. But you have written that you use only English sources. By definition, then, you have access to about 175 out of some 700 of Nichiren's writings; further, some of those that deal with your subject matter are not among those 175. And finally, you are missing a further piece of context within which the Dai-Gohonzon appeared: the numerous other Gohonzon that Nichiren inscribed before and after the Dai-Gohonzon's purported inscription. Each of those other Gohonzon has what is called a wakigaki, which is like a little dedication or explanation written down the left side of the Gohonzon's face, and many have further commentary written on the back; these wakigaki and commentary often describe the context of that Gohonzon's inscription. The wakigaki named the person or persons for whom the Gohonzon was inscribed; such Gohonzon are called ikki ichien (一機一縁: "one capacity, one relationship [to the Buddha]") and are considered to be for the enlightenment of the person named on the Gohonzon and his or her direct descendants.
Where the untranslated gosho are concerned, please note that I'm not saying the omissions are intentional. I'm sure they [the omissions] are (or, originally were) not [intentional]. Gosho, being well over 700 years old, are not easy to read in the original, let alone translate. This is not to mention those behind your other sources who are intent on persuading you that the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic.
My point here is that, your obvious sincerity and laudible dedication aside, the evidence available to you is insufficient for reaching such a stark conclusion about a matter so crucial to many Nichiren believers.
Back to the article. Mention of doubts cast upon the Dai-Gohonzon's authenticity are appropriate to this article, but detailed descriptions of the hows and whys, and inclusion of wording—especially emotionally loaded wording—to discredit the Dai-Gohonzon are out of place. If you feel that it is important enough a subject to be handled in Wikipedia (which it probably is), I suggest creating a separate article and placing a link to it in this one.
There is also the question of article balance in terms of how much space is dedicated to a given sub-topic. The section of this article mentioning the Dai-Gohonzon is three paragaphs long, each of them of measured length; in contrast, the section challenging its authenticity consists of over 10 paragraphs, some of them quite lengthy and detailed.
For one-on-one discussions of personal feelings, neither the article nor the talk pages are the right place, and there are plenty of forums for that elsewhere. Links to them ought to be enough for those readers who are interested in that sort of discussion.
This reply is itself now too long, so I'll stop here. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


HI Jim

>By definition, then, you have access to about 175 out of some 700 of Nichiren's writings; >further, some of those that deal with your subject matter are not among those 175.

I can find no mention of Nichiren's writings that are not translated into English in which he writes of the Dai Gohonzon--other than one of the alleged transfer documents. Since, as you say, hundreds of his writings exist still today, it seems logical to me that at least one of them would mention his most important inscription by name. Have you read a gosho that is available in Japanese-only, other than the transfer document, in which Nichiren directly mentions the Dai Gohonzon? If not, and if there is indeed a lack of such a document, I believe this ommission is extremely noteworthy.

>but detailed descriptions of the hows and whys, and inclusion of wording—especially >emotionally loaded wording—to discredit the Dai-Gohonzon are out of place.

Do you feel I have used such language in the material I contributed to the article itself (not on this talk page)? And do you feel I have used "emotionally loaded wording" on this talk page? If so, in reply to both or either questions, where have I done so? If not, to what and whom are your referring?

>This is not to mention those behind your other sources who are intent on persuading you that >the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic.

To whom are you referring?

>There is also the question of article balance in terms of how much space is dedicated to a > >given sub-topic.

Is this a Wikipedia guideline or your personal or some other editorial opinion? If it is the former, please provide me a link to it.

Take care. --Faith Likewater 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Faith. Wow, I seem to have hit a raw nerve—apologies for that. Please don't take my generalizations personally; meanwhile, let me repsond to your questions.
To my knowledge (I have not read them all either), the gosho do not mention the Dai-Gohonzon in so many words (i.e., the word Dai-Gohonzon does not appear), even in the Japanese; that is true. But they do mention it indirectly; unfortunately, since the gosho are subject to interpretation, people disagree on the indirect references (I believe you cited "On Persecutions Befalling the Sage," which is a perfect example). So whether any given gosho refers to the Dai-Gohonzon is a matter of such interpretation (and, perhaps, even one of faith).
Whether direct mention of the Dai-Gohonzon is logical because of its importance, I believe is also a matter of the logic applied: that of a 13th-century Japanese priest, or that of a 20/21st century thinker—not only do we have difference of linguistic cultures to deal with, but also those of temporal cultures. Among Japanese interpreters of Nichiren, this has been—as I wrote above—a matter of contention for at least 500 years.
Yes, I feel some of the material that you added is emotively worded. Alone its length and the volume of arguments against the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon are indicative of passion (which in itself is not bad, and also is not the object of my criticism; if anything, I admire your dedication). Since I already pointed out some of the problem spots (see the beginning of this sub-section), I don't think it would be fruitful to engage in a point-by-point crticism of your additions.
My reference to those "who are intent on persuading you that the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic" is to some of the sources, among the websites, you have cited, particuarly the pages of the Kempon Hokke Shu, though Soka Gakkai also seems to be moving in the direction of negating the authenticity (or, at least, the necessity) of the Dai-Gohonzon.
If I have confused your sources with ones cited by someone else, I apologize. I'm not criticising your intent or you personally, or even all of the content you have prsented; I am criticizing some aspects of its presentation.
On balance/section length: I thought this was a matter of common editorial sense and—in a way—fairness. Inasmuch as you present evidence and state your own conclusions, though, something could be said about Wikipedia not being a venue for presenting original research; but let's not go there <g>.
I guess your comments also mean that you're not interested in a separate article on the Dai-Gohonzon, which—as I've written before—seems to me to be a more appropriate place for detailed information of this nature.
Best regards Jersey_Jim 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

The writings of Nichiren that I've read seem very clear and direct regarding the aspects of his teachings that he deemed important. He wrote many letters covering the same topics from various angles and in ways that suited the particular recipients' levels of education, social background and understanding. I find it extremely incongruous that no such detailed correspondence of his can be cited in reference to the Dai Gohonzon.

>On balance/section length: I thought this was a matter of common editorial sense and—in a way—>fairness.

Since you have not listed a Wikipedia source stating that this is an official view, then I take it that it is your opinion. If I am wrong and this is not solely your opinion (vis a vis Wikipedia), please list the official Wikipedia link where this guideline appears. If these comments are your opinion, that's cool. In this case, my opinion is different than yours.

>My reference to those "who are intent on persuading you that the Dai-Gohonzon is inauthentic"

As stated, I came to the conclusion I cited primarily based on Nichiren's writings. Regarding your comment: >Wikipedia not being a venue for presenting original research<. Since, as you know, Nichiren Shu has long held that the Dai Gohonzon was not created by Nichiren, my addition to this article was based on previously-existing research in that regard. However, I do concede that additional research into Nichiren's own writings that supports the Nichiren Shu contention was conducted by me.

All the best to you.

--Faith Likewater 15:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Faith.
>> On balance/section length: I thought this was a matter of common
>> editorial sense and—in a wayfairness.
>>Since you have not listed a Wikipedia source stating that this is
>> an official view, then I take it that it is your opinion.
Apologies if my reply was ambiguous. Your take is correct: as far as I know, this is not a Wikipedia policy. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion and we'll just have to disagree here.
Do you object to a separate article on the Dai-Gohonzon that includes your material, with links to it from other articles that mention the Dai-Gohonzon? Or do you prefer that this material stay in this article? I ask because the focus of this article is Nichiren's life, so the Dai-Gohonzon is incidental topic, and not the main topic, of this article.
On the matter of the Dai-gohonzon's authenticity and whether it is mentioned in the Gosho, I guess we'll also have to agree to disagree. For instance, I believe the passage in "On the Persecutions Befalling the Sage" in which Nichiren says, "The Buddha fulfilled the purpose of his advent in a little over forty years … For me, it took twenty-seven years," is a reference to the Dai-Gohonzon. Others disagree. I'm sure you realize also that any Gosho directly touching on the Dai-Gohonzon as an extant object, directly or indirectly, would have to been ones written between 1279 and 1281, which doesn't leave very many.
In relation to another subject—emotive wording and such—I found a Wikipedia guidline page that might be of reference to you (actually, to us all...) at Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
Btw, are you the same person quoted as Robin in previous discussions? I ask because I may have confused some of that person's comments and sources with yours. If you're not Robin, then I need to apologize for that.
Best regards, Jersey_Jim 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Thanks for offering clarification and checking about who is who. I'm not Robin. I have no objection to a separate Dai Gohonzon article. I think that since the Dai Gohonzon is mentioned in the Nichiren article, the fact that there is an alternative view about it is relevant. A briefer version of the information that appears in the section marked "Completion of mission in this world", including some portion of the note I inserted at the top of it, would suffice IMO. From there a link could go to a full article on the Dai Gohonzon, which would include both the article I wrote and the alternate information that appears in the aforesaid section. In that case, in the Nichiren article, I would remove the heading "Completion of mission in this world" and replace it with a paragraph titled "Dai Gohonzon" that briefly explains what it is and that ends with a link to the full Dai Gohonzon article.

Based on all the reasons I have given thus far, in my view the header "Completion of mission in this world" is an opinion, not a hard fact. That's why I suggest a more neutral header for that section. I just don't have time to do what I've explained (create a new article, move stuff around) right now. Other projects going on. I can do it later. Maybe not until year's end. Maybe before though.

Regarding: >I'm sure you realize also that any Gosho directly
>touching on the Dai-Gohonzon as an extant object,
>directly or indirectly, would have to been ones written
>between 1279 and 1281, which doesn't leave very many.

If it weren't for the fact that the Dai Gohonzon was supposed to be Nichiren's lifetime achievement and for the fact that he was doggedly explicit about those aspects of his teachings that he deemed essential, his not mentioning the DG outright in at least one letter or treatise would not seem odd. But given the pattern of his writing life, this missing material sticks out.

Also, when I read "On Persecutioins Befalling the Sage" and see a point by point listing of persecutions that fulfill the prophecy of the Lotus Sutra coupled with a direct statment parallelling Nichiren's life to the lives of his precedecessors as votaries of the LS, I read the letter simply as him saying his life's purpose, like those of his predecessors, was fulfilled by living up to the Buddha's prophecy vis a vis the persecutions votraries will endure. Not only that, but in his case, he fulfilled the prophecy and endured persecutions in a way that no one else had ever done, and emerged absolutely victorious.

One needn't read between the lines to see what he says in the letter. He wrote it all very clearly. The muddiness only exists in the background information provided by the editors. If it weren't for that info, if we only had been exposed to Nichiren's letter, I cannot see how we would have logically concluded that he was writing about the Dai Gohonzon or the Gohonzon at all, since he mentions neither and says exactly what he means.--Faith Likewater 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Faith: Thanks for further comments. Now I see better where you're coming from. I also not realize that the characterization "fulfillment of mission" is inappropriate. I'll undertake the moving-around and rewriting work over the next few weeks and create the separate article. As long as you continue to watch the Nichiren page, you'll be able to observe progress and make changes you think necessary.
Apologies for my confusing you with contributor Robin. Meanwhile, it's time for me to hit the hay! Have a good one, Jersey_Jim 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

No problem and thanks for taking this on. I will tune in from time to time. --Faith Likewater 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Jim, FaithLikeWater -

Thanks both of you, for a wonderful and informative bit of dialogue. You're both over my head in your knowldege of the literature, and have inspired me to study more. Nonetheless, I do have this one comment to make regarding a comment made early on in this debate, buy Jim. I quote:

"He also frequently mentions maintaining respect for the priesthood and the head temple,
regardless of what disagreements my arise; and he called the Soka Gakkai a
"cart for gathering up deluded people and taking them to the Dai-Gohonzon."
(I'll see if I can find the exact source and wording for you, but I have to dig the book out of a closet.)"

I am compelled to remind youo that a quote such as this is not acceptable without an exact reference. If you haven't found the book yet, you really should change it, to seperate your interpretation or memory of what you read, from the meaning you promote here, and assign to Toda. If you know what I mean...

Other than that, you also have inspired in me a curiosity about how Makiguchi and Toda really practiced -- did they really see themselves as Nichiren Shoshu in the tradition of NS? Or did they always see themselves as seperate, as followers of Nichiren, primarily, Soka Gakkai secondarily, and of NS priesthood only consequentially....I wonder...Any thoughts? - R aka Ruby --71.250.122.11 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material added 2005.11.26

I have removed the following because it is only tangetially relevant to the subject of the section, adds nothing of informational quality about Nichiren's intentions, and in fact interrupts the flow of the explanation.

He based his views on his studies of the sutras, and the Lotus Sutra in particular. Among other things, in this teaching, Sakyamuni declared often that it (the Lotus Sutra) was the true teaching and that his earlier teachings has been provisional. For example, from the second chapter, "The Expedient Means,":

…now I say to you, I have preached various sutras, and among those sutras the Lotus is foremost!

…This sutra opens the gate of expedient means and shows the form of true reality. This storehouse of the Lotus Sutra is hidden deep and far away where no person can reach it. But the Buddha, teaching, converting and leading to success the bodhisattvas, opens it up for them.

I do not understand the intent of today's additions. Please explain them. Also, why is the link to SGI's site necessary? Shouldn't information on the Lotus Sutra and explanations of why it was Shakyamuni's ultimate teaching (in was not his final teaching, either; the Nehan-kyo came after it).

Also, what is the point in watering down Nichiren's refutations of the other Buddhist schools (he labeled them heretical!) and in saying that Nichiren was opposed to corrupt religious and political institutions? Although in effect he may have been, such opposition was neither his primary nor professed purpose: He saw other sects and religions as heretical and therefore as leading people to unhappiness. Also, he had tono particular focus on "the people" as this term is used in post-18th century political discourse: his intent was to save all people regardless of social or political station.

Other historical inaccuracies are also creeping into the article with regard to Japanese society in the 12th century.

Best regards, Jersey_Jim 07:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jim, how are ya? - My take on the above comment: It suggests that Nichiren didn't just decide of his own accord that the Lotus Sutra was the ultimate teaching, but rather that he took his cue from Shakyamuni's own words (those quoted are from the Lotus Sutra istelf). Nichiren gets a bad rap in my view, for having "opposed" other forms of Buddhism, when in reality, I think it was much more about him saying "Hey, look, guys - we've been given a direction from the guy who has the map, and we're not paying attention! We are going down the wrong road! Let's change course!" When he wasn't listened to, he got a bit loud on them. I am being a little facetious here, but, I think my point is valid, or at least worth considering. It seems worth noting to me. Or, if not noting in the article, it at leasts warrents a toning down of the attitude towards him. He is definately often presented as some kind of malcontent or rabble rouser or something, and I don't think that's fair - nor is it NPOV. So, with revisions, I think the paragraph is worth it. What do you think? - R--71.250.88.213 04:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine thanks. :) Well, Ruby, I sense that you're thinking hard about these things, as are the others here, and putting a lot of time and work into this, so I don't what to discourage or offend you. But that makes it hard to be frank. Please read my comments with that awareness.

I think you're not reading the whole article and letting it say these things in logical threads: it already says elsewhere some of the things you mention, and you're inserting elements that describe things only certain schools believe, writing them as generalities. I sense that you're jumping the gun a little bit—maybe wanting to say too much all at once. For instance, the notion of awakening the Buddha within, or "innate Buddhahood" as you have phrased it—is not perceived in the same way by all Nichiren schools. Further, a number of non-Nichiren schools, such as Shingon and Tendai, also make the claim, so it is not as distinguishing a feature as is the various Nichiren schools' opposition to other schools. Also, your latest insertion mentioning the Dai-Gohonzon is non-sequitur where you've done it, because at that spot in the article I was writing about the Gohonzon as a generality, not about specific ones—which, the Dai-Gohonzon included—were mentioned immediately after your insertion, and in context!

I also feel that you're inserting you own wishful thinking—your personal image of who or what you want Nichiren (Daishonin) to be or have been, or to have said. I'm not saying your images are wrong (that's not a matter to address here), I'm saying it doesn't belong in the article, inserted as fact. When we work on these articles, we (me included) have to make some effort to distance ourselves from our personal sentiments.

Also, Nichiren Daishonin's attitude towards other sects and the concept of religious tolerance are two different things: except for notions held by people of certain political philosophies, opposition to other religions as in Nichiren's case does not preclude tolerance, nor does tolerance not preclude opposition. I agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the Rissho Ankoku Ron and other gosho ("Hey, look, guys - we've been given a direction from the guy who has the map, and we're not paying attention!"), but this is precisely what is meant by "opposition to other schools." Since you've obviously read the gosho, I'm sure you know of the Four Dictums. Nichiren Daishonin was not saying "hey guys, let's all get along," he was saying, "hey guys, what you believe in is wrong; you'd better change it." Of course, I agree with you the Nichiren Daishonin is getting a bad rap when scholars characterize him as militant and all that—even though they claim to have read Rissho Ankoku Ron, they seem to overlook the passage that says "although they may carry swords and staves, they should never use them to take life." But that is different from "not opposing." And they overlook that Nichiren was talking on a religion level, not a secular one: of course people have to get along, regardless of religious beliefs, on the plane of daily life.

Please re-read today's additions and see if they can't be worked in more smoothly, without interrupting the logical flow and temporal sequence. There are also some spelling and mechanical problems (comma placement, etc.). I don't want to offend or step on toes, so I'm going to refrain from doing it myself today. Later, Jersey_Jim 06:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments over the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon

So far, I've left alone the contributions on the differing views of the Dai-gohonzon, even though I've felt that they don't belong here because of the way they are written (i.e., as arguments rather than descriptions); but with the latest additions by User_talk:202.0.106.130, something needs to be done to bring the article back to an encyclopedic one.

I'm addressing the portion of the article beginning at Nichiren#No known documentary evidence by Nichiren that he inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon (What Nichiren stated was the fulfillment of the purpose of his advent) and ending with the paragraph preceding the sub-head Nichiren#Passing.

Descriptive mention of the differences mentioned is warranted because of the historical background to them and because they do, indeed, exist; but with the latest addition (of a counterargument to the previous one against the Dai-Gohonzon's validity), I think this material needs to be moved to a separate, perhaps sub-, article and sorted out: the writing is sub-standard and meandering, and the new material especially violates a lot of formatting conventions. I propose moving this material to a sub-page (e.g., Nichiren\Daigohonzon_issues), sorting it out there, and then deciding whether to re-introduce it into the Nichiren article, put it into the article on Nichiren Buddhism, or put it into a new article on the Dai-Gohonzon itself.

I'm also having difficulty fathoming any rationnel for styling "Dai-Gohonzon" "daiGohonzon" and would appreciate an explanation.

I've tried to clean up the new material a bit, but more work is needed. Opinions on how to handle this section (i.e., where to put it for the time being, not the doctrinal merits of its content) appreciated.... HTH, Jim_Lockhart 08:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was Nichiren's Purpose of advent?

Hi Jim, I am Safwan. Thank you for your post. I agree - in general - about your current impression regarding my new addition about the DaiGohonzon (DaiGohonzon probably a better writting than 'daiGohonzon'), which I posted today 14th Feb 06.

As a novice to wikipedia, I have some difficulties in entering data properly, and thank you for your suggestions for organisation of the material.

I think the material can be installed under a general new title: Nichirens's Purpose of Advent and fulfillment of mission. This sounds more general than " Arguments" or "Arguments about the daiGohonzon" . So far, we have 2 views on this subject: (a) the DaiGohonzon (the new material), and (b) overcoming persecution (the previous material starting with : fulfillment of mission and no documentary proof about the DaiGohonzon etc..).

I think you'd agree that to present an opinion, one just should not start ny a negatuon. I mean , to present an opinion of what was Nichiren's purpose of advent, the current title : "No known documentary evidence of... " constitutes a truly messy neating and somehow forceful start, I would say, rather than the smooth mature logic of : first ask the question what was Nichiren's purpose of advent. And then let people present their arguments.

It seems logical, perhaps, to present first the general question: What was Nichiren's purpose of advent. If so, we have so far the two views on what was Nichiren's purpose of appearnace: view /a/with the DaiGohonzon and view /b/ with no-DaiGohonzon .

I think you are right, that a re-organisation should be done to put both views in order. I wondered, what would a truly logical approach be to this subject? Would it be , perhaps, to introduce a separate point: "What was Nichiren's purpose of advent". Such a title can be a wonderful trigger to an impartial presentation of views. But I had difficulties in creating a new archive.

Regarding the encyclopedical nature of wikipedia, I think people's trust to the impartailaity of presented information can only be supported by presenting the views of all, and not only filtered some, of Nichiren's observers.

Finally here, I want to say I have no idea how that (User-talk ... number shown somewhere above.. ) was associated with my posting! My user's name is SafwanZ, and my email is: gachiriki@yahoo.com.au 60.229.70.142 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)SafwanZ60.229.70.142 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Regards and appreciation.


Hi SafwanZ. Thanks for your reply. I was wondering whether you were new. The number associated with your name was the IP address from which you accessed Wikipedia when you made your edits. If you sign up as a user, you can assign yourself a user name (I guess I'm one of the few who uses his real name), and contributions you make while logged in under your user name will always be associated with your user name. If you'd like to continue contributing, I would recommend that you consider signing up (it doesn't cost anything, and as far as I know there are no disadvantages).
Your contribution about the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon appears more or less as a rebuttal to what User:Faith Likewater contributed; unfortunately, its placement in the main article is inappropriate in that such exchanges are supposed to take place on talk pages such as this one. (Personally, I find the content of Faith's section too argumentative and detailed for this article, too; but I also believe merely removing it would be unfair both to Faith and to readers who want to know about this aspect of the Dai-Gohonzon's history.)
Before Faith's contribution appeared, the article reflected only the view that the Dai-Gohonzon is the ultimate purpose of Nichiren's advent (i.e., the view of the Fuji schools; see version of 1 November 2005); Faith's work introduced the view held by most non-Fuji schools.
From the content of your contribution, I gather that you are knowledgeable about this aspect of Nichiren Buddhism. In this context, I look forward to working with you to make this or another a better article. I feel that details of this sort deserve an independent article that would be linked to from this one.
HTH and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jim,

Good advice, Jim, regarding signing in first! (My username is SafwanZ. I do not understand why the system does not recognise me? maybe beacuse I did not submit any article yet?) BTW, Safwan is my real name, and I am practicing Nichiren's Buddhism for over 22 years. This brings us to the subject of how to do justice in presenting an article about Nichiren in the Wikipedia. If we take a look at the 'Contents', we would see that the main article was written with a strong focus on denying the validity of the daiGohonzon.

Please take - for example - the subtitle: /1.5 Completion of mission in this world/. The explanation given in 1.5 represents the opinion of only a part of Nichiren’s believers. In general, it represents the view of priesthood administered schools, denying the beliefs of the majority of Nichiren’s believers. There are 12 million people who would say that the presented explanation is biased and historically inaccurate. If the Wikipedia is the product of ordinary world citizens participation, then it is only logical to include the ordinary world citizen’s views about Nichiren.

We all agree that Wikipedia’s policy of Neutrality would require that Wikipedia pages should not be a place for sectarian implications and onesided presentation. Impartiality requires to present all points of view equally. “Equally” also means that the main Contents about the subject would include both views, without monopoly of one view over the other. If we allocate for SGI Buddhism’s beliefs an obscure corner of just “Talk”, or something to be “discussed” about, then we are not doing justice to equal presentation of information.

With respect to Faith’s opinion, I think that, starting with point 1.5 (about Nichiren's mission), neutrality requires introduction of a note which clarifies the fact that there arte 2 views about Nichiren’s mission in this world :

/a/ The view of traditional schools (administered by priesthood,except N.Shoshu) /b/ The view of the laity organised school (SGI), which separated from N. Shoshu.

If we take a look at point 1.6 : we see that it was specifically dedicated to speak about lack of a letter from Nichiren about the DaiGohonzon. Point 1.6 was written in rather a circular way (assuming that validity depends on a letter about validity). It was only natural to present point 1.7.

Clarity would require, perhaps, integrating 1.6 and 1.7 into one point, because both address the same issue of DaiGohonzon, as view /a/ and view /b/.

I suggest that point would be: 1.5 Nichiren’s mission and purpose of advent. There are two major beliefs about Nichiren’s purpose of advent in this world:

1.5.1. Fulfilling the prediction of the Lotus Sutra. (Faith’s view) 1.5.2. Inscribing the DaiGohonzon (Safwan’s view)

I do not know how to organise the points above, and I wish first to hear from you and from Faith, with sincere respect to all, SafwanZ 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)SafwanZSafwanZ 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim and Safwan,

Faith Likewater, here.

I have no problem with reorganizing these pages. As I told you a while back, Jim, I simply can't do it myself. Re: Nichiren's mission, as my article states, I based my findings on "On Persecutions Befalling the Sage" because the Writings of Nichren Daishonin identifies this particular letter as the only one of Nichiren's writings that refers to the Dai Gohonzon's inscription as being the purpose of Nichiren's advent. If there were another document of Nichiren's that is identified in this way, I would examine it. However, as of now, this letter, "On Persecutions...," is the only one officially designated by the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu to refer to the inscription of the Dai Gohonzon as the purpose of Nichiren's advent. Since my article is based on the letter officially said to be the only one of Nichiren's letters that references the Dai Gohonzon as the being the purpose of Nichren's advent, I believe any rebuttal of my article should reference only that letter as well.

Safwan, your article includes a lot of information that is not relevant to the information in "On Persecutions befalling the Sage" and which, therefore, to me has no relevancy to what I wrote since I strictly referenced only that letter, since it is the only one the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu says offically indicates that the Dai Gohonzon was the purpose of Nichren's advent. Sorry to repeat myself here, but it seems that you, Safwan, have missed my point of sticking only to the officially sanctioned writing regarding this matter.

[Aside: BTW, I have repeatedly asked people who have extensively studied these matters whether or not there exists another writing of Nichiren's in Japanese that references the Dai Gohonzon as being the purpose of Nichiren's advent and they have repeatedly indicated that other than "On Persecutions...." there is no known document of this type at this time.]-Faith--70.229.195.234 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/Talk%7ENichiren_2131.html"