'Disputed Gosho' ~ by ROBIN BECK April 10, 2006
Gosho/Goibun of Nichiren
The issue of forged transmission documents is not that hard. We pretty much know what is in dispute and why. One can read about them at my blog and decide for yourself. A good place to start would be The Real Transfer Dox.
Later on, I plan to re-examine how those things surfaced in history. The forged Gosho issue is more difficult; that is why I have stayed away from it so far. There are two lists that I know of which can be accessed on line. These show the most authenticated of the Gosho/Goibun. But I was told that even some of these might not exist in Nichiren’s hand. Some might be very early copies; or even later copies of letters that were known to have once existed in the original. Some of these might have script errors, or may ever have been tampered with.
However, most are likely rock solid. Listing of Authenticated Gosho (Goibun) of Nichiren DaiShonin THE ROKU NAI LIST (146)
On the other end of the spectrum, there are some obvious forgeries. These contain gross errors and even anachronisms. I picture some Edo Era warlord forcing a monk to make a forgery at sword point. So the clever monk slyly inserts a clue.
For example, Nippo Den, dated 1280, has this phrase: “[Nichiren] enscribed the Kaidan-in Honzon 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 Daishou 3 su-n (9 cm.) tall….
The plank Honzon and statues re now at Fuji….
When Nikko left Minobu, Nippo left with him.” — Nippo Den/Biography of Nippo, Nichiren Shoshu Seiten, pgs. 731-732
That was not written in 1280. Nikko left Minobu n 1288. Also, Izumi-ko Nippo most likely did not go with him. See Statue at Ikegami Honmonji from 1288
There are gradients in between well authenticated writings and sloppy forgeries. Ryuei has explained this in some detail, but I have never managed to overcome my ‘glazed eye syndrome’ {thina-middha} long enough to read and absorb his comments thoroughly.
This is an area that SGI should investigate and then update the background material in the WND. If a Gosho is suspect, we should know why. Or if a Gosho is A+ authenticated, we should know the details. For example, did a copy of “Reply to Kyo’o” magically appear just in time to support Nichikan’s theories? Who made the copy, and when? What do they say happened to the original? Is the story credible? [See 'I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life' ... Forged Gosho?]
Suggested reading: forgeries Ehipassikho, robin
‘I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life’ … Forged Gosho? ~ by ROBIN BECK April 10, 2006
Gosho/Goibun of Nichiren
I have never paid much attention to this issue. But there was a discussion in which someone mentioned this:
“I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life in sumi, so believe in the Gohonzon with your whole heart. The Buddha’s will is the Lotus Sutra, but the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Miao-lo states in his interpretations, ‘The revelation of the Buddha’s original enlightenment is the heart of the sutra’”
It appears that Nichikan was the first to infer that “Ninpo Ikka” applied to Nichiren. And this quote, plus another from Kyo-o dono Gohenji were his main sources. “The soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Namu-myoho-renge-kyo” is from the same Gosho.
oneness of the Person and the Law (Jpn.: nimpo-ikka)
“A principle established by Nichikan (1665-1726), the twenty-sixth [25th] chief priest of Taiseki-ji temple in Japan, with regard to Nichiren’s (1222-1282) teaching, indicating that the object of devotion in terms of the Person and the object of devotion in terms of the Law are one in their essence …”
It seems a bit amazing that Nikko and everyone else for 400 years missed that. Moreover, inferring a major doctrinal innovation, from one of Nichiren’s personal letters of encouragement to a lay follower, seems kind of strange. Besides, the quote always rubbed me the wrong way, so I checked:
Listing of Authenticated Gosho (Goibun) of Nichiren DaiShonin
and:
THE ROKU NAI LIST (146)
If Nikko and the other Senior Disciples were aware of it, and it contained a key doctrine not found elsewhere, then it seems like it would be listed?
At any rate, “Kyo-o dono Gohenji” was allegedly written to Shijo Kingo on August 15, 1273. So I decided to read an actual authenticated Gosho written to Shijo Kingo.
I chose Consecrating an Image of Shakyamuni Buddha Made by Shijo Kingo, written on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, 1276.
Wow! It is like different people on both ends.
Besides, if Shijo Kingo received THE letter in which Nichiren implies that Ninpo Ikka applies to himself inscribing the Mandala Gohonzon, then why, 3 years later, is Nichiren telling him how to eye open a statue of Shakyamuni?" ~ Robin Beck
In the two Gosho volumes that the SGI actively promotes as authentic works of Nichiren, only 113 are actually in Nichiren's hand. Indeed, the first volume has 172 goshos, and the second volume presumably contains a similar number? This means the SGI are promoting somewhere around 344 goshos as being authentic, when only 113 can actually be guaranteed. In all there are thought to be a total of 560 goshos attributed to Nichiren, which presumably means that the SGI will shortly be publishing a third volume. But nowhere in either of these first two volumes does it indicate whether the writings are in Nichiren's hand or not or that such goshos might have doubtful origins. This is extremely misleading. Indeed, some of the best loved and most often quoted SGI goshos are most certainly forgeries. And as for the SGI publishing so many unauthenticated writings which are attributed directly as Nichiren's authentic works, can only mean that the SGI is not interested in promoting Nichiren's pure teaching, but rather making money.
Tragically this is something that the SGI refuses to accept, since these forged writings suit their own ends. An excellent example is Soka Gakkai's adherence to the 'Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings' from which most of its theosophy derives . The 'OTT' is a work that is widely considered as fraudulent, but the SGI continues to base itself upon it, using the work as not only a means to their own objectives (which are unclear except to make money), but also base themselves almost entirely upon it. The SGI needs to be severely admonished. ~ MBB. C.
'On authentic and unauthenticated writings attributed to Nichiren' ~ by Graham Lamont ...
1) Those Gosho still extant in Nichiren Shonin's (goshinseki) handwriting are clearly authentic.
2) Those goshinseki destroyed in the Minobu fire of 1876' No one questions most of these works, e.g. the Kaimoku sho. however, one of these, the Shuju Ofurumai gosho, a partially autobiographical work, is still debated. Never-the-less, since a very early Fuji-ha biography of the Patriarch cites two key passages from this work, it seems likely to be genuine, for the original copy was at Minobusan.
3) Copies by Nikko in Nikko's hand (goshinseki) and other first generation disciples. Also a few copies by slightly later disciples
4) Works with no early copies but doctrinally and stylistically close to the above works
5) Works that have no early copies and have doctrinal and stylistic differences with the above 1-4 categories. These are clearly dubious.
"The San Dai Hi Ho Sho is a widely debated work with some relying on a computer study of its vocabulary to assert its genuineness but it is clearly close to the Fuji-ha.
Nikko does not mention it when discussing the Three Great Secret Laws.
The Shoho jisso sho, in the opinion of many. is a forgery in its first two or three pages (STN, v. 1, 723-725) which was supposedly written a short time after the Kanjin honzon sho.
These pages expound a form of medieval Tendai original emlightenment [hongaku] without mentioning "hongaku" as such:
It asserts the bombu or unenlightened worldling as the real Buddha. Thereafter, however, it returns to a more conventional view that is close to the genuine works of Nichiren Shonin (classes 1-3 above); on the other hand even parts of the more authentic-looking part (page 725 on) appear to be pasted together by a later copyist and there are different modern versions of this section in part. I still think the part from p. 725 on maybe a fusion of two or more real letters of the Patriarch.
The Issho jobutsu sho has some genuine-looking passages but also some slightly hongaku passages; this might be explained as the remnants of Nichiren Shonin's Tendai training and so scholars date it to 1255 (relatively early).
On the other hand its advanced exposition of the Daimoku faith points to a time after 1260. These facts lead me to be very suspicious.
Please note that some of the dubious works attributed to Nichiren Shonin contain passages that summarize genuine ideas of the Patriarch BUT we must be aware that they do not have the same certainty found in authentic works. I hope this is useful." ~ Graham Lamont.
In the two Gosho volumes that the SGI actively promotes as authentic works of Nichiren, only 113 are actually in Nichiren's hand. Indeed, the first volume has 172 goshos, and the second volume presumably contains a similar number? This means the SGI are promoting somewhere around 344 goshos as being authentic, when only 113 can actually be guaranteed. In all there are thought to be a total of 560 goshos attributed to Nichiren, which presumably means that the SGI will shortly be publishing a third volume. But nowhere in either of these first two volumes does it indicate whether the writings are in Nichiren's hand or not or that such goshos might have doubtful origins. This is extremely misleading. Indeed, some of the best loved and most often quoted SGI goshos are most certainly forgeries. And as for the SGI publishing so many unauthenticated writings which are attributed directly as Nichiren's authentic works, can only mean that the SGI is not interested in promoting Nichiren's pure teaching, but rather making money.
Tragically this is something that the SGI refuses to accept, since these forged writings suit their own ends. An excellent example is Soka Gakkai's adherence to the 'Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings' from which most of its theosophy derives . The 'OTT' is a work that is widely considered as fraudulent, but the SGI continues to base itself upon it, using the work as not only a means to their own objectives (which are unclear except to make money), but also base themselves almost entirely upon it. The SGI needs to be severely admonished. ~ MBB. C.
No comments:
Post a Comment