You've got me on a short leash...ruf, ruf.....good for me! Got something for you and Viv by Friday....she's involved with my quest, but I'm putting her another packet together as I type. Now, I found two older books 1) seikyo press -1968- Lecture on the Sutra--Hoben and Juryo Chapters by....I'm afraid to tell you...Jose Toda, I mean Josei....It's got the 1968 prayer version on the very back, but their is no translation of the silent prayers in English...who reading this can still recite par 2, the longer middle part, by heart?...niji butsu go sho bosatsu gyu issai daishu...Vivian was determined to keep doing all 5 prayers anyway....I wagered her otherwise....I won the bet....she succumbed in 5 weeks. Now, I brought this up not to irritate you, well, perhaps, just a wee bit, but to tell you I started reading the other book, Selected Lectures on the Gosho, vol 1 by....well, a ...this was a 1979 first edition, and it is on 3 goshos - so, I started reading the 3rd, The True Object of Worship....but reading their study material differently...it reminded me of a course I took in Film Critcism.....we had watch movies objectively, and not allow ourselves to enter the ....State of Absorption! Now having relied solely on this site and having acquired another wee bit, it was fun reading this from a newly acquired perspective.....you were so right, so many "Nichiren said this, but meant this"...some I will brush by you later. But: during these years, 1967 - 1979 did they have anything right in your opinion? And, were you ever able or curious enough to hone in on the first appearance of Nam, and your best guess as to why they streamlined, outside of the obvious....wha do you think the priesthood was chanting at the time of the three presidents? What do you charge for private tutorial?!.....I'm not frustrated on how little I know, because it's not a contest, and, because there is so much to learn, I find that even more exciting!...so there!
I've read that very detailed historicity of Nam's first possible appearance, as in Viet-nam, but as to it's incorporation into a mantra, taking the place of Namu...the lineage was corrupted at some point, had to.
The Sharma is free. I have plenty to eat, pay my bills. Besides,laymen don't accept alms. I'd you want to donate, bestow a Gohonzon on a seeker of the Way or speak to Shinkei.
Shinkei asked me to tell you to chant the Daimoku and study well the teachings before he could accept donations.
Nobody agrees with us but that is what I see, it was a corruption to remove a character from the Daimoku. Likewise, it destroyed unity.
if one would change the "one essential phrase", what else would they change? answer...everything.in 1967 to about '74 the sgi had one thing close to right. they had a similar sprit to nichiren to do shakubuku with a fearless spirit. however, because they followed the teachings of the perverted, for many years , nichiren shoshu, which is not really nichiren shoshu(correct school), aka the fuji school, they never truly followed nichiren and the lotus sutra. however, many people did emerge to propagate the law in spite of the fact that the true dharma had been long ago hijacked. NOT NICHIRENS FAULT ! what and why is the poison drum?the one thing we know for sure is that by the time the priest nichiju formed the kempon hokke(circa 135 years after the death of nichiren), it was clear that the various sects had diverted from what NICHIREN had taught and began to mix the true with the transient. however, the shoshu was the only sect/school who began to chant and spell nam myoho renge kyo rather than namu.... . one cannot find a legitimate gosho in nichirens hand with the characters nam rather than namu. yet in the sgi/shoshu american translations they use nam.by 1976 ikeda was much more visible and i am pretty sure he had started to formulate a plan to split with the shoshu, after they publicly shamed him. rightly so. by '80 it was all about ikeda. next, he had to get rid of GMW.As a true priest...unless one strives to correctly uphold the dharma, shinkei cannot accept any type of donation otherwise he is complicit in slander.