DaiGohonzon

DaiGohonzon

Me: It is logically unthinkable that something so "important" as the DaiGohon would never have been mentioned by Nichiren. There are only two possibilities. Nichiren never wrote about it because he never inscribed it or, at the very least, he never deemed it the most important Gohonzon OR there was a very far reaching conspiracy to destroy any and every mention of it. There is no evidence of such a conspiracy.

NST member: The Daishonin did talk of the DaiGohonzon in the Gosho. What I am saying is that all you lot can say is that  the Goshos in which he does are faked. 

Me: not in one Gosho in Nichiren's or Nikko's hand is any mention ever made of a Gohonzon of 1279, let alone of a special Gohonzon. 

NST: What I say is that your argument is incomplete and facile because The DaiGohonzon was carved in 1279 and many Goshos were written before that. 

Me: What about those after 1279 in the Daishonin's or Nichiren's hand, none of which ever mentions the DaiGohonzon? Why is the first mention of the DaiGohonzon made in the 15th century, 150 years after the Daishonin passed?

NST: Hundreds of Goshos have been lost or burned. We do not know the content of these Goshos. For this reason alone, you can not say that the Daishonin definitely did not write about the DaiGohonzon.

                

Me: The burning of Gosho hasn't been evidenced, just asserted by Nichiren Shoshu. There are no first hand references to the "Dai-Gohonzon" no secondary references from any contemporary  Priests or lay people and your claim would mean that such people as Toki Jonin and Shijo Kingo must have betrayed Nichiren too. The Daishonin would truly have to have been a very poor judge of character to have everyone dismiss his central doctrine and dictates so quickly after his death. There are not even any third or fourth generation references. That s a bit too much burning Karla.  Plus, the circumstantial evidence goes strongly against the "Dai-Gohonzon", the denunciation by Nikko's temple Honmonji and the fact that Wooden Mandalas were in style when Nichiu inscribed the DaiGohonzon. Nichiu's time   

There are dozens of Gosho written after 1279. Shakyamuni Buddha, the Lotus Sutra, the Daimoku, and the Gohonzon are referenced hundreds of time. Why not the most important doctrine and principle of all, the doctrine of the DaiGohonzon?  

The early Nikko Temples had not heard of such a thing and roundly denounced it when they did. So, the burning conspiracy would have been so far reaching that it would have had to have involved the other Nikko founded Temples who logically should have been on your side of the claim. The  burning  theory would simply have had to involve too many dispirit people, each and every one of them being required to betray their Master and totally ignore what you say is a central doctrine of the faith. Why is our forgery argument for the DaiGohonzon so ill conceived? The Daishonin wrote so many lines of warning about forgeries and appropriations, for example: The Bodaishin Ron attributed to Nagarjuna but really written by Pui-Kung; "fabricated sutras" such as the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng and the Meditation Sutra of Shan Tao; and the Lotus Sutra itself "fabricate their own scriptures" [Chapter 13]; and he claims of Kobo Daishi that Ichinen Sanzen is found in the Shingon Sutras. Nichiren also speaks about those who change and alter scriptures in the Kaimoku Sho. Nikko too speaks about those who forge writings. "How much worse will it be after his passing" [in this latter age]? All these individuals and sects were inferior. To make themselves appear superior, they falsified documents and relics. Taisekeji was in a bad state and needed something to bolster their membership/ What better than a "super Gohonzon".

NST: Yet you believe that some time in the mid-fifteenth century, Nichiren Shoshu completely invented a DaiGohonzon and changed it's whole philosophy & doctored Goshos but no one noticed, left the religion in disgust, or even wrote about it. 

Me: Some did indeed notice and even referenced that Nichiu contracted leprosy for his transgression of forging the DaiGohonzon. Many others observed Taisekeji's aberrant doctrines and ignored them. Probably because they deemed them too outlandish. In retrospect, they made a big mistake. The Kansho accords from the late 1400s of which Taisekeji was a signatory, also make no mention of the DaiGohonzon. 

An Accord on the Principles of the Dharma

From ancient times there have been disagreements concerning the doctrines of our sect. This and that position have been taken, with no agreement, and differences of opinion exist until today. 

Further, these have become an obstacle to the prosperity of the Buddha-Dharma. This is too lamentable for words and is sad indeed to consider. So it is that now the worthy head monks of the temples of all lineages have discussed the situation and determined that as we try to propagate our teachings far and wide it will not do for our teachings to lack unity. 

For this reason we here synthesize the ancient disagreements of our past masters to express our intent to repay the debt of gratitude to our teachers. With glad hearts we declare the unity of main and branch temples alike and realize a unified harmony that will last forever. We wish from now on to be as inseparable as a fish and water, and that this firm covenant will never wither or be defiled. 

Let the lamp of the Dharma shine for more than ten thousand years and the blessed life of the enlightenment of the three assemblies endure forever.

Sometimes the Nichiren Shoshu claim to have secret documents that purport to demonstrate the DaiGonzon's authenticity and other times, they claim that all references were destroyed by the evil Minobu sect. I propose that they do not release these secret documents because they too would be proven to be forgeries. Probably they have already shredded them. Karla also referenced that there is a writing of Nikko where "I Nikko transmit this DaiGohonzon to Nichimoku", naming the DaiGohonzon of the third month of Koan, 1279.  Unfortunately, there has never been any document referencing  the Ita-Mandala of Taisekiji independently authenticated by experts before the time of Nichiu. Nichiren and Nikko often labeled Gohonzon as "DaiGohonzon" or "DaiMandala". Nichiren also describes just what that supreme object of worship represents, a depiction of the Buddha's transmission of the Dharma to the Bodhisattvas from underground at the ceremony in the air. Therefore, any mandala would be a representation of the Gohonzon and all such depictions are DaiGohonzon.  What the Nichiren Shoshu has done is to objectify that in a transubstantiated plank. This is similar to what the Roman Catholics have done with unleavened bread as the actual body of Christ. 

All Nichiren Shoshu would have to do  is show us one document in Nichiren or Nikko's hand from the "many treasures of Taisekeji". But they can't! 

As for the ephemeral burned or lost Gosho that may or may not have existed and which may or may not have mentioned the plank Gohonzon, no one can really speculate as to their content. Yet the Nichiren Shoshu goes beyond speculation to claim that they did indeed make reference to the DaiGohonzon of 1279. Similarly, their argument that Nikko in one writing actually mentioned the burning of Gosho. However, even were this writing authenticated, no mention is made as to their content, least of all a mention of the plank Gohonzon of 1279.  The only thing he mentions is that the other senior priests were embarrassed because Nichiren wrote these Gosho in the common vernacular of the Japanese people. Again, this document has yet to be authenticated. It is a strange accusation since these same priests preserved dozens of Nichiren's writings in the Japanese vernacular.