Picture the Gohonzon as an organism

The Buddha and Nichiren taught the Three Treasures and the Three Great Secret Laws  and to keep in mind that the Treasure of the Law and the Secret Law of Namu Myoho renge kyo reigns supreme.

We can picture the Gohonzon as an organism with Namu Myoho renge kyo as the brain and spinal cord [central nervous system]. Although the brain and spinal cord is the master organ that controls all the other organs in order to assure that they perform properly and harmoniously, the organism will die without a heart, liver, or lungs. Lord Shakya of the Original Doctrine is the heart. 

Removing Lord Shakya of the Original doctrine from the Gohonzon is like removing the heart from a person. It will lose its beneficent function as a father whose heart dies loses his ability to support his family.

The SGI leader and the "difficult" member

SGI leader: The Gohonzon works through faith alone.

Difficult member: I have faith that turtles can fly.

SGI leader: No silly, faith in the Gohonzon.

Difficult member: The Gohonzon mandala or the Gohonzon as eternal Buddha-nature?

SGI leader: They are the same thing.

Difficult member: Then why did the Daishonin bother to inscribe and describe the Gohonzon mandala when he could have merely described the characteristics and function of the Buddha nature?

SGI leader: I'll get back to you. I have to leave now to home visit my member.

Causes AND Conditions

Causes: The power of faith and the power of practice
Conditions: The power of the Buddha and the power of the Law

The Succession Through the Sutra Scrolls is pillar of the Daishonin's teachings

There was no face to face bestowal between Aryasimha and Nan-yueh, let alone between 
Aryasimha and Tientai. There was no face to face bestowal between Tientai and Dengyo nor between Dengyo and Nichiren Daishonin. What characterizes and identifies these men as successors to the Buddha was their Enlightenment that they derived from the scrolls of the Lotus Sutra, not from a Shingon-like essence transferred from a living master in the seat of the Law to a disciple.This is one essential meaning of follow the Law and not persons and a pillar of the Daishonin's teachings. At this time, only a handful of disciples and believers practice this principle. In this sense, it is only we who  believe in the Succession Through the Scrolls of the Sutra and the writings of Nichiren Daishonin who are the inheritors of the Law.

Peaceful Soka Gakkai/New Kokeito in bed with monsters

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-lifts-self-imposed-arms-export-ban-110257462.html

Those who use forged documents too are parasites

Kent: My first concern was spotting and eliminating sectarian bias, so I read three versions of the Lotus Sutra: one produced by the SGI (Burton, by far the coarsest and least scholarly), one by the Rissho Kosei-kai (my favorite) and the first english translation, by a Christian, (H. Kern, 1884). After reading and comparing these versions, I concluded that Nichiren's evaluation was correct, and that the theologies of other Chinese and Japanese schools are no longer appropriate for this time.

Mark: This paragraph makes little sense to me. Could you rephrase it?

Kent: The next issue was determining how to practice Nichiren's teachings correctly. However, there is considerable dispute about the actual content and practice of his teachings, dating back to his original 6 senior disciples. Now, Nichiren certainly knew his teachings best, and would therefore be in the best position to judge who among those 6 understood them correctly.

Mark: Only one of the six elder priests understood the teachings correctly? What Gosho is that from? I don't remember reading it any where except in a copy of a copy of a copy of a "Gosho" found at Taisekaji.

Kent: He probably would therefore have passed his teachings on to that person or persons.

Mark: No, to all who embrace and uphold the Sutra at the cost of their lives.

Kent: This led me to investigate the matter of the inheritance.

A. Matters regarding the inheritance.

Murano, Shu and KHK maintained that all six elder disciples inherited the teachings equally, but I had serious doubts about the veracity of this claim.

Mark: When you read the Gosho, you see that Nichiren's Buddhism has not one particular inheritor and the Succession is Through the Scrolls of the Sutra [and the authenticated writings of Nichiren]. Remember, Namu MYOHO RENGE KYO? Since all of these men embraced and upheld the Sutra to the best of their abilities, they were all true votaries and inheritors of the Law. The present day Kempon Hokke members too inherit the Law.

Kent: First, this view is contradicted by Nichiren's actual behavior regarding Kuonji Temple, as we shall see in a moment. In addition, Japan in the 13th century was a very hierarchical society. Appointing all 6 equally would have run contrary to secular custom of the time, contrary to common practice in all temples at the time, contrary to common practice in all other sects at the time,

Mark: That is correct but for different reasons than you espouse.. As your colleague Dave Cole has pointed out, both Shakyamuni and Nichiren were iconoclasts. Nichiren, as the True Votary of the Lotus Sutra, realized that the Lotus Sutra is so radically different and ahead of its time, that all people are equal by virtue of the Succession Through the Scrolls of the Sutra(and Nichiren's authenticated works).

Kent: and contrary to common sense.

Mark: Any succession outside the scrolls of the Lotus Sutra and writings of Nichiren Daishonin is contrary to common sense and contrary to the teachings: "Follow the Law and not the person."

Kent: If you want to corrupt an organization or ontology, appoint several "equal" leaders- the result will be chaos).

Mark: If you want to create a revolutionary organization based on the Law rather than the person, you identify everyone who chants the Daimoku as a Bodhisattva of the Earth and you identify The Master of Teachings Lord Shakya of the Original Doctrine as sole Teacher and Jogyo as sole leader.

Kent: I examined the following evidence:

1. The history of Kuonji Temple. This temple was built by Hajiri Sanenaga, the Lord of Minobu, for the Daishonin, and was completed in 1281. The Daishonin was it's first Chief Priest. In 1282, the Daishoinin passed away in Ikegami. According to Dictionary, Shu and Murano, Nikko Shonin did in fact succeed the Daishonin and become the 2nd Chief Priest of Kuonji.

Mark: Nichiren instructed that there be a rotating abbottship. Only Nikko was, at first, able to keep his promise due to geopraphical considerations and faith (I surmise).

Kent: He appointed Membu Ajari Niko as Chief Instructor of Priests in 1285. Nikko then departed in 1289, leaving various relics that were specifically willed to Sanenaga and Niko, and intentionally or unintentionally, some portion of Nichiren's ashes. Niko was then appointed by Sanenaga to become Chief Priest. This is a matter of historical record at Kuonji, and is not disputed by Shu, who inherited the temple and its records via Niko. As we can see, Nikko did in fact succeed Nichiren as the abbot of the chief temple of the denomination at that time, Kuonji.

Mark: But not by the decree of the Daishonin as you assert. By virtue of his close location to Kuonji and his strong sense of responsibility.

Kent: 2. The Gosho. Nikko Shonin's appointment as the head of the denomination is supported by other documents in the Daishonin's hand. In particular, the Hyakurokka Sho (One Hundred Six Articles) states "I have appointed Byakuren Ajari Nikko as the So-Kanzu, the general Chief Priest, and transfer the entirety and every detail of the true doctrine of Nichiren. The top senior priests down to every disciple must regard each of the successive High Priests transferred from Nikko to each in succession to be the So-kanzu, General Chief Priest, without any opposition as in this time for throughout the eternity in the future." (NS)

Mark: Both SGI Jim Celer and even your own Rev. Hori have refuted the authenticity of at least parts of this Gosho. What is it that Rev. Hori states? "There have been additions to the One Hundred and Six Articles." If there are additions (which to the other Nichiren sects is a given) the Gosho must either be partially in the hand of another or must be a copy. Therefore, what you stated has been proven to be false and you you had better reform the tenets in your heart.

Kent: The original is available for perusal at Taisekiji.

Mark: Could you please allow Rev. Kubota to peruse it? I can have it arranged.

Kent: 3. The behavior of the 5 elder disciples. Although they certainly objected to Nikko's interpretations, they never actually questioned the legitimacy of his inheritance.

Mark: Could you please provide some documentation for this assertion? Rev. Yasahara would be very interested in reading it.

Kent: Nichijo, a third level successor to Nichiro of the opposing Minobu School, was the first to question the succession.

Mark: Could you please provide some documentation for this assertion? Rev. Yasahara would be very interested in reading it.

Kent: But this did not occur until 1480, nearly 200 years after the fact. Furthermore, he was in the process of establishing a competing sect at the time this accusation was made.

Mark: The Kansho accords date from this time and there is no mention of this dispute. Are you sure you are not making it up?

Kent: 4. The transfer documents. I found that the existence of two transfer documents (Minobu Sojo and the Ikegami Sojo) is a matter of record in the Nichiren Shu Shugaku Zensho, although their contents are disputed.

Mark: Not only their contents but their authenticity is disputed. Why didn't the Nichiren Shu burn these records along with all the other Gosho as the Nichiren Shoshu (through a forged letter of Nikko) alleges? If it told of Nikkko's succession, surely the Shu would have it burned? Isn't it the evil Shu who burned those Gosho's pertaining to the DaiGohonzon yet who preserved Nichiren's Five Major Works? You have a lot to answer. We will be waiting.

Kent: I then looked to see if the contents were borne out by historical fact. I found that as per these documents, Nikko became abbot of Kuonji, assumed leadership of the sect at least to the point of vociferously criticizing and reprimanding the other 5, and acquired the land for the Precept Sanctuary at Fuji (which has yet to be constructed).

Mark: I criticize the other sects, does that make me the one you should all follow? Are some of my criticisms valid? Are some invalid? Are all Nikko's criticisms valid? Are all invalid? Isn't it human nature to criticize one's colleagues when one feels that they have been unfairly passed over for promotion? Nikko too wasn't perfect. That is why we follow the Law. How much more so in the case of Nikken or Ikeda?

Kent: 5. The document of October 8, 1282. The only translation of this document I have ever seen was abridged, so the context is missing and therefore open to conjecture. However, it reads more like a set of instructions than an inheritance document. Remembering that each of the 6 were engaged in propagation in separate areas at the time without formal appointment or temple abbotship (except Nikko), my opinion is that the Oct. 8 document was intended to formalize their appointments as his primary disciples. If anybody has a complete translation from an unbiased academic source, please forward a copy to me.

Mark: First, let me establish the general view of the 35 or so other Nichiren sects:

(From Daniel Montgomery)

"These sub-sects, cut off from the sacred Mount Minobu, from the principal temples in Kyoto, and from each other, were hard-pressed to establish their titles to orthodoxy. The distinctive feature of the Fuji school is its claim that the only true line of descent from Nichiren is via Nikko, the chosen heir. In 1488, two centuries after the death of Nichiren, Nikkyo, a priest at Taiseki-ji, claimed to have discovered two documents written by Nichiren, passing on full authority to Nikko alone (Murano, 'Sokagakkai'). The original  documents have disappeared, but 'true copies' are preserved at Taiseki-ji. Other Nichiren bodies ignore them as forgeries.

"The first of these documents, called the 'Document for Entrusting the Dharma which Nichiren Propagated throughout His Life,' is said to have been written by Nichiren on Mount Minobu in September 1282, a month before his death. It reads, 'I transfer all my Buddhism to Byakuren Ajari Nikko. He should therefore be the great leader for the propagation of true Buddhism. When the sovereign establishes this religion, he should erect the Kaidan of Hommon-ji at the foot of Mount Fuji. All we have to do is await the time. This will be the Ordination Platform of the original Gate (Hommon no Kaidan).'

"Needless to say, this document played especially into the hands of the Hommon-ji party since that temple is specifically named, but it says nothing about Taiseki-ji. Since it was written in Chinese, the key phrase could also be interpreted as, 'At Hommon-ji of Mount Fuji the Kaidan ought to be established,' thus making it more specific yet. In any case, its propagation did nothing to settle the dispute between the two temples.

"The second document, called 'Document for Entrusting Mount Minobu,' is supposed to have been written by Nichiren on the day he died. It reads, 'I transfer the fifty-year teachings of Shakyamuni to Byakuren Ajari Nikko. He is to be the Chief Abbot of Kuon-ji on Mount Minobu. If anyone, clergy or layman, opposes this, he is no disciple of mine.'

"The two documents are contradictory. The second says that all authority is to go to Nikko, who is appointed High Priest of Kuon-ji, Mount Minobu, whereas the first says that the official High Sanctuary (Kaidan) is not Mount Minobu, but Hommon-ji at the foot of Mount Fuji. In any case these documents convinced few people, and Nichiren Shoshu, which published them, remained a minor sect right up to the end of World War II, when it had less than 3 per cent of the Nichiren faithful. Its sudden rise to prominence since then has been owing to other causes." (Fire in the Lotus pp.169-170)

Kent: The document of October 8, 1282. The only translation of this document I have ever seen was abridged, so the context is missing and therefore open to conjecture.

Mark: If it (the second Transfer document) were in Nichiren's hand and universally accepted, it would not be open to conjecture. As long as it is open to conjecture (for you and I at least), we must defer to the evidence. The evidence is that these so clled "Transfer Documents are no more than the fabricatiion of the Taiskeaji sect who despite having these so-called Transfer Documents, remained a backwater temple until the SGI came along. The Taisekaji evidence must not have been very convincing even to the contemporaries of Nikkyo. Why should we believe in them today?

Kent: 6. The funeral procession. A description exists in Nikko's hand, validated by the other 5. Nikko assumes the most important position, that of personal attendant to Nichiren's coffin.

Mark: Not in my copy of Nikko's Record of the Funeral Cortege.

Kent: My conclusion was that Nikko was in fact Nichiren's designated successor as the leader of the denomination. However, there is also the possibility that the other 5 senior disciples also correctly understood Nichiren's teachings.

Mark: That is why even our conclusions are not to be trusted and why we must have faith in the Lotus Sutra, the "opinion" of the Buddha.

Kent: Therefore, the next order of business was to determine whether or not any of the remaining 5 was correct.

Mark: I will let you answer my rebuttal first and then we can move on to your other assertions, if that is ok with you?

Kent: There was one exception: you asked for documentation re the 5 elders questioning the legitimacy of Nikko's inheritance- I have looked high and low, and have not found any documents where the 5 elders disputed same.

Mark: Actually, of course, you will not find any such document. They did not question Nikko's "sole" inheritence because there never was a sole inheritence.

Kent: One would think that if such documentation existed, the descendants of those 5 would surely be waving them in our faces.

Mark: Why isn't Taisekaji waving Nikko's authenticated writings in our faces where he suppots what is written in the so called 106 Articles? all Nikko, stated, was, "I think", reguarding his assertion of a more perfect understanding of the teachings. This letter would have been an opportune time for Nikko to have restated what was said in the 106 Articles, and the two transfer documents. We know why he did not mention them. Because they didn't exist!!! We know that the successive High Priests of Taisekaji are not stingy quoting from these so-called Gosho. Why was Nikko who, supposedly received these teachings directly, stingy in quoting them? Taisekaji is a castle built on sand and quicksand, I might add. That is why you and your comrades are sinking ever deeper into error.

Kent: Beyond that, I found little worth constructive remark. For example, you state that "Nichiren instructed that there be a rotating abbotship"- well, this is an opinion shared by Shu and KHK but is unsupported by any documentation.

Mark: Perhaps I can supply some documentation, however, at this time, by Oct. 8th 1282, Nichiren, on his death bed at Ikegami, he had become too weak to write anything let alone the so-called Transfer Documents. Therefore, I believe, whatever accounts there are, are from the Six Senior Disciples and these accounts indicate that he designated the Rokurosa (Six Senior Disciples) on this day. What I do know is that there is a document signed by Nikko in which there is a schedule of attendence for the overseeing of Kuonji temple at minobu which reads:

"January, Nissho; February; Nichiro; March, Echizenko:..........September, Nikko" and so on.

Kent: And it is clearly in opposition with historical fact.

Mark: What fact might that be? That there were Six Senior Disciples? Evn Taisekaji doesn't dispute this fact. Nevertheless, whether their were in fact six senior disciples or only one, this fact could never supercede the teachings of the Lotus Sutra or Nichiren's lifetimes teachings on the succession through the scrolls of the Lotus Sutra; the saving power of the Daimoku, and following the Law rather than the person.

Kent: Another example is where you state "Any succession outside of the scrolls of the Lotus Sutra is contrary to common sense and contrary to the teachings" and then quote the Lotus Sutra out of contrext.

Mark: Can you quote the Lotus Sutra in or out of context where it indicates the inheritance of the Law through a sole successor (save for Jogyo Bosatsu). The Lotus Sutra and the writings of Nichiren are very clear that Shijo Kingo, Nikko, Nanjo Tokimitsu, Toki Jonin, Nichiro, Soya Nyudo Nichiju, Lady Nichinyo Rev. Kubota, and Bonnie Bennett, for example, are all Bodhisattvas of the Earth.

Kent: In other cases, you present interpretations of teachings as actual teachings, and in several instances, you present interpretations of history as actual history.

Mark: At least I am not going against the admonitions of Nikko that those who forge documents are parasites and by inference, those who use these forged documents to change the teachings.

Kent: And then with regard to your remark about the October 8, 1282 document: you have used this document to refute the legitimacy of the transfer to Nikko, and yet you have never seen a complete translation of it, and are therefore unsure of its context?

Mark: Daniel Montgomery's passages above quote several passages. Anyway, I don't make it a habit to study the disputed texts when there are so many authenticated texts in which to learn the teachings.

Kent: Mark, forgive me, but this leads me to the conclusion that you are considerably more interested in supporting your ontology than in getting at the truth.

Mark: Since the ontology I embrace is the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha, there is no doubt as to its truth. You are right, it is my life's work to support my ontology, to the best of my ability. I am sorry that you are not as convinced about your ontology that you entertain doubts about it.. Might that be because you do not embrace the Lotus Sutra and you abandon Shakyamuni Buddha?

Kent: And I have no interest in and will not engage in idle "debate". If I am wrong, and you sincerely want to pursue these matters, fine. As a start, I suggest that you visit the websites of KHK, Shu, Tendai and Butsu. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but so far, you have given me nothing of substance to even discuss. best regards,

Mark: I suggest you reread the Lotus Sutra and the Kaimoku Sho. Then perhaps we can discuss the Identity of the Original Eternal Buddha.

SGI leader Janakos practically whining: "(he [Nichiren] said everything he wrote before sado [most of what you quote]) was his expedient means teaching.)

Point # 1: Most of the 100 + passages of proof of the identity of and Nichiren's reverence for the Original Eternal Buddha [Shakyamuni] are from during or after Sado. This proves that Nichiren never wavered in his teachings or gratitude for this Buddha.

Point # 2. I suggest that in order to avoid the Buddhist sin of hypocrisy that you cease teaching your members again and again such Gosho as Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime, A Ship to Cross the Sea of Suffering, The Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra, and Establishing the Correct Law for the Peace of the Land. 

Daisaku Ikeda is The Third Powerful Enemy of the Lotus Sutra and its votaries

>>>>>The Sansho Shima of NST is the third of the powerful Enemies -- Nikken and his interpretation of the face to face inheritance.>>>>>

Incorrect. The NST priests are the second of the Three Powerful Enemies. Daisaku Ikeda is the Third of the Three Powerful enemies:

"Wearing patched rags (Petrocelli suits),

in seclusion (inaccessable to the rank and file members and surrounded by special STK),

pretending that they walk the true path ("Only the SGI -- dedicated to the achievement of kosen-rufu on a global scale -- has inherited the true lifeblood of faith"],

and scorning [other] people ("Traitors and slanderers"),

Greedily attatched to gain (money, awards, and honors).

They will preach the Law to laymen and be revered by the world as arhats of the six transcendent powers ("I have not yet revealed one hundredth of my powers" -- Daisaku Ikeda),

These men, cherishing evil minds, ever thinking of earthly things, assuming the name of aranyas (Sensei, SGI president for life),

will love to collumniate us (making up stories about Hokke believers being taitan, suffering loss and punishment..),

saying such things of us, as all these bhikshus for love of gain preach heretical doctrines" ("They were people who exploited the organization for their own ends while avoiding any real hard work themselves." "They never truly exerted themselves strenuously in propagation, in activities for kosen-rufu, in giving individual guidance, or in promoting publications. Instead they used the SGI merely to satisfy their own egos." " In the end, they became deadlocked and brought about their own ruin." "Because they failed to make earnest efforts, they did not grow, nor did experience the true joy of faith.")

The Object of Worship of the Original Doctrine

The Object of Worship of the Original Doctrine

by Rev. Tetsujo Kubota

(from the Tradition of Nichiren Doctrine)

"The Three Great Secret Dharma" refers to:

(1) Object of Worship of the Original Doctrine (Hommon no Honzon),

(2) the Title of the Original Doctrine (Hommon no Daimoku), and

(3) Precept (Ordination) Platform of the Original Doctrine (Hommon no Kaidan).

"Object of Worship" (honzon: "the Principal Revered or Holy One") means the Object of Faith or Belief. Incidentally for a disciple of Nichiren an explanation concerning the "Object of Worship" which goes beyond the Patriarch's teaching is not allowed. The teaching of Nichiren Shonin is absolute.

After founding his sect at age thirty-two Nichiren Shonin spread the teaching in Kamakura. At this time it seems that he worshiped the Title "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo" alone with the Hokekyo placed in front of it. After he received the standing image of Lord Shakya at Ito at age forty, that is, after the Ito Persecution for the Dharma, according to the "Letter on the Kings of the Country of the Gods", he installed the image of Lord Shakya and the ten fascicles of the Hokekyo.

According to the "Letter to the Great Assembly of Seichoji" written about this time, he says, "Having written an oath of the utmost sincerity, I, Nichiren, prayed with hands joined, to the Object of Worship..." And the fact that he prayed joined to the hands of the Object of Worship is proof that he was worshiping the statue of Lord Shakya. (It is presumed that behind the statue of Lord Shakya he worshiped the single Title "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo" but there is no evidence for this.) Moreover, as he says in his letter to the wife of Daigaku Saburo, "You worship the Seven Characters three times a day" (291), the believers at this time were worshiping the Single Title ("Namu Myoho Renge Kyo"

alone).

In the tenth month of the eighth year of Bun'ei (1271) after the Persecution at Tatsunokuchi Nichiren Shonin was kept in custody at the residence of the local chief (jito) of Echi (the modern Atsugi City), Homma Shigetsura. On the ninth, the day before they said he was to be exiled to Sado, he recorded an Object of Worship (gohonzon) with a willow twig. A single Title ("Namu Myoho renge kyo") (with Fudo to the right and Aizen to the left represented by Sanskrit characters, as we face it) and the side inscription "Written at the village of Echi in Homma in the Province of Sagami" with the year, month, and day of its revelation. It is said to have been written using a twig broken from a willow tree.

Throughout the first period after he had gone over to Sado, the Objects of Worship that he wrote had the Title, the Two Buddhas Shakya and Taho and also Fudo and Aizen written symbolically in Sanskrit characters, the side inscription "Drawn in the Province of Sado" and the year, month, and day of revelation. There are many examples of this form and it is called the "Hundred-copy Object of Worship of Sado".

In the second month of the ninth year of Bun'ei (1272) with the great motive that "they will put an end to the inconceivability of Nichiren" he composed "On Opening the Eyes (Kaimoku Sho)" and implied that in terms of his Original State (honji) he was the manifestation of the Bodhisattva Jogyo.

In the fourth month of the next year he composed On the Object Worship of Contemplation (Kanjin Honzon sho ). In this work, which he called "my own great matter", explained in doctrinal terms the substance of the Object of Worship of the Original Doctrine. On the eighth day of the seventh month in that same year he revealed and drew an Object of Worship called the "Mandala First Revealed onSado" (Sado Shiken Mandara), but regrettably the original autograph has not come down to us. But fortunately a copy still exists, so from this we can understand its arrangement. There is one at the Head Temple Myomanji which the disciple Temmoku received and was given in the sixth month of the following year. (A version on silk) There is a side inscription, "The Shramana Temmoku received and was given [it]. For some reason it does not say, "Bestowed and given [to the Shramana Temmoku"]. The arrangement of this is closest to "Mandala First Revealed on Sado".

On Sado the Saint himself kept the image of Lord Shakya enshrined:

"When I was in the Province of Sado between mountains and wilds far away from a village was a samadhi place (gosammaisho: a cremation ground or graveyard) called Tsukahara. There was a hall with a single room and four walls in that place. In the roof the boards did not meet and four walls were ruined. In the rain it was like being outside and the snow Piled up inside. There was no Buddha [image]. Neither was there a single reed tatami mat. However, I set up [the statue of] the Master of Teachings Lord Shakya which I have kept from the beginning and grasped the Hokekyo in my hand, put on a straw raincoat and held up an umbrella, yet for four years no person appeared and they gave me no food." ("Reply to the Bhikshuni Myoho", STN, v. 2, 15)

He kept and guarded this image of Lord Shakya after he entered Minobu as well. ("On the Matter of Forgetting the Sutra Which He Kept") Furthermore, he bestowed mandalas on believers.

"Although this mandala in terms of its written characters is five characters or seven characters, it is the Teacher of the Buddhas of the Three Ages; it the certifying text of the attainment of Buddhahood by all women. It becomes a torch on the paths of the underworld; it becomes an excellent horse on the Mountain of Going Forth in Death. It is like the sun and the moon in the heavens. It is like Mount Sumeru on earth. It is the ship for the Sea of Birth-and-Death. It is the Guiding Teacher for the Attainment of Buddhahood." (On Offering to the Mandala of the Sublime Dharma, STN, v. 1, 698)

The Saint, himself an exile and, what is more, in the countryside on an isolated island, was not able simply to obtain Buddha images and perform the "Eye-opening" dedication. In this respect a mandala could be drawn as soon as paper, ink, and writing brush were to be had and also was easy to transport. Moreover, there was nothing more welcome for lay donors than the mandala, which

was in the Saint's very own hand.

In the eleventh year of Bun'ei (1274) Nichiren Shonin entered Minobu and the laudatory text of the Mandala which he wrote out in the twelfth month of the same year is as follows:

"Since the Extinction of the Great Enlightened World Honored One there have passed in succession more than two thousand two hundred and twenty years. Even so among the Three Countries of India, Han [China] and Japan, there has not yet been this Great Obiect of Worship (dai honzon). Either they have known but not yet spread it or they have not known it. Our Compassionate Father, by means of the Buddha Wisdom, has hidden and retained it, leaving it for the Latter Age. At the time of the last five hundred years, the Bodhisattva Jyogyo come forth in the world and for the first time spreads and proclaims it."

What we should note on this Mandala is:

(1) The fact that the mandala is called the Object of Worship (honzon). There are those among one group of scholars who "say that the Mandala is not the object of Worship but assert as the Object of Worship the statue of the Buddha. However, the Saint himself said "the Mandala is the Object of Worship (honzon)".

(2) "Namu Tensho Hachiman to sho butsu" (Adoration to the Buddhas, Amaterasuomi-kami, Hachiman and so on) means he reveals the Original State (honji) of the national gods of Japan.

(3) He calls himself "the Bodhisattva Jogyo". The Saint was a person of humility and had only implied this in On Opening the Eyes (Kaimoku sho), the letter of the Revelation of the Person. It is on this Object of Worship that he first says this. The one other place he refers to this is only when he says through the mouth of Shijo Yorimoto, "His Reverence Nichiren Shonin is the Bodhisattva Jogyo, Messenger of the Lord of the Three Worlds, the Father and Mother of All Beings, the Tathagata Shakya." (The Deposition of Yorimoto, STN,v.2, 1358)

With the passage of time in the Bun'ei (1263-1274), Kenji (12751277), and Koan (1278-1282) periods the Saint wrote the Mandalas at various times in all sorts of forms, the Abbreviated Style, the Quintessential Style and the Expanded Style. The Abbreviated Style consists of the Title ("Namu Myoho renge kyo"), the Two Buddhas Shakya and Taho with the Two Spell Kings (Myoo), Fudo and Aizen, in Sanskrit characters. The Quintessential Style means he added the Four Bodhisattvas Converted by the Original Buddha. The Expanded Style means the whole of the Ten Realms are included.

When we view the more than one hundred twenty extant autograph specimens of the Mandala, there are various sorts, those of the first part of the Bun'ei period all having "Namu" affixed to the various deities and those of the Koan period having it affixed only to the Four Holy Ones (the Two Buddhas Shakya and Taho, the Four Bodhisattvas, Jogyo and the others, Shariputra and so on), those where there are the Branch Body Buddhas (Bun'ei) and those where there are not (Koan) and so on. Former Teachers have divided them into the Unrevised (Bun'ei and Kenji periods) and the Revised" (Koan period), separated them into those Following Others' Intentions (zui ta I) (Bun'ei and Kenji periods) and those Following His Own Intentions (zui ji I) (Koan Period), and classified the Bun'ei era as the Practice Period, the Kenji era as the Adjustment Period, and the Koan era as the Perfection (or Completion) Period. (Note)* "Revised": the word "Revised" means to "redo something incomplete". And so there are scholars who say we must not use the word "Revised", viewing Nichiren Shonin in the same way as a unenlightened worlding. However, is not the fact that the Saint studied and thought these out something superlative?

Nikko's view

"In order to make sure which is the right teaching for attaining
Buddhahood, I listened to the preachings of various priests. As a
result, I have come to believe in the Lotus Sutra, in which it is
expounded that Nichiren Shonin is the Bodhisattva Jogyo commanded by
Sakyamuni Buddha, Lord of the Saha World and parent of all living
beings, to appear in the Latter Days of the Law as a messenger of the
Buddha with the duty of propagating the Lotus Sutra." -- Nikko

Our contention based on the Nikken debacle

Nikken, before he was High Priest was supposed to have hired a prostitute in Seattle. Hiroe Clow was the witness and officer Sprinkle was the police officer who supposedly interviewed Nikken right after the supposed incident. The Nichiren Shoshu claims that both Hiroe Clow and officer Sprinkle were bribed to testify against Nikken by the Soka Gakkai to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Our contention is that the late Hiroe Clow and Mr. Sprinkle may well have big accounts in a Swiss bank but that still fails to prove the DaiGohonzon authentic or Ikeda Sensei enlightened.

Paisano Mark Herrick rebukes the Queen of Denial, Kathy Ruby and Julian Semian proud SGI members [BTW Julian is now a proud Nichiren Shoshu member]

Julian:

If Mr. Daisaku Ikeda is really as bad as some contributors
to a.r.b.n would have the world believe that, for me,
prooves at least one thing... if a cult at all,
far from being a personality cult, SGI is, in fact,
an anti-personality cult.

SGI is a strong, well organised, group of people actually
bringing about World peace in spite of the variety of
individuals that make it up.

How can that be?

Only because SGI is an organisation of common mortals,
ordinary human beings, united in love and faith in
the Lotus Sutra.

The simple fact that an organisation such as SGI exists
in our lifetime is a (rare) cause for joy.

"This, my land, remains safe and unharmed,...
My pure land is indestructible." --Lotus Sutra. Chapter 16.

Mark Herrick: Your friend and fellow memba', Kathy - "Queen of Da Nile" - Ruby, would disagree with you here..... She claims that the Lotus Sutra has lost its power in the Latter Day. How come you guys can't seem to get your doctrine straight???? I mean you're so well organized and all.... AND....... If you are united in love and faith in the Lotus Sutra, you must now be a memba' of a Shakaymuni Cult too. After all, who preached the Lotus Sutra? Please don't tell us it was really Nichiren in disguise. You were all too quick to post a warning about us being  membes of a Shakaymuni cult. AND...... If you are united in love and faith in the Lotus Sutra, how can you continue to advocate that Nichiren is the Eternal Buddha? I mean, where is it in the Lotus Sutra that Shakaymuni predicts that the Eternal Buddha is to appear in the Latter Age to spread the Dharma? Have you ever read the ENTIRE Lotus Sutra? SO THEREFORE...... if you claim to be united in love and faith with the Lotus Sutra, but fail to practice as it teaches then you are ONE BIG LIAR. I am astounded by the self deceiption that the Gakkai is capable of, and the slander you stoop to in critisizing us who are trying to spread the orthodox Dharma. We rely on the Three Proofs that our founder and leader  in Mappo, Nichiren Daishonin, taught us. Documentary, Theoretical and Actual. All our posts use the Three Proofs. None of the Gakkai's posts use the Three Proofs. All we are asking is for you to supply proof of the Gakkai's doctrine using the Three Proofs. So far, in the last three years of this online debate the Gakkai has failed to do so. Oh, don't get me wrong, the Gakkai has responded, but with insults, abuse and slander... never with doctrinal proof. Kathy even claims to have beaten me in debate about the power of the Lotus Sutra. Of course she didn't beat me, all she did was change the subject and say that we taught that the Daimoku was not the primary practice, which is of course a complete lie and fabrication. We chant the Daimoku morning and night. Anyways, its all more lies and obfuscation to cover the truth. We supplied over one hundred quotes and excerpts from the Gosho where Nichiren stated unequivacably that it was the Lotus Sutra that we worship and saves us in Mappo. When Kathy had her back to the wall she saught to change the subject. Now you go and ADMIT the Gakkai is united in love and faith in the Lotus Sutra. The Gakkai is a psuedo-religion based on the teachings of Makaguchi, Toda and Ikeda. There is little that the Gakkai actually has in common with Nichiren, except that they coopted his Daimoku and Gohonzon as a cloak for their real teachings. Makaguchi admitted that he never wanted to be a Nichiren Shoshu priest becasue then he would have to follow Nichiren Shoshu doctrine exactly without adding any of his own *personal* ideas, which we know is the entire theory of value creation. The Gakkai from its inception has been based on lies. Go on Julian try and refute me using Sutra passage and Gosho passages. Try. I doubt you can. I do expect you to insult and abuse me. You have shown yourself perfectly capable of doing this in the past. Come on Julian, I dare you to try and debate me using scriptural proof. When you can't, and instead resort to insults then you will be exposed. The entire arbn will know then that you cannot refute the truth. And Julian, please don't forget that it was Susan Starr who  started arbn. And just so you don't revise history, it was to  provide a forum for doctrinal debate and discussion. So far  we have seen little debate from any of the Gakkai, what we  have seen is plenty of insults. I am waiting Julian. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo Mark Herrick

The Soka Gakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu are about MAKING THINGS UP

"Nichiren says Lotus Sutra but means DaiGohonzon."

"Nichiren says Lord Shakyamuni Buddha but means DaiGohonzon."

"Nichiren says Lord Shakyamuni Buddha but means Nichiren."

"Nichiren says all believers but means the SGI."

"Nichiren says Lotus Sutra but means Namu Myoho renge kyo."

"Nichiren says all believers but means the High Priest of Nichiren Shoshu."

"Nichiren says the DaiGohonzon..."(though he never mentions the DaiGohonzon)

"Nichiren says the High Priest of True Buddhism...."(though he never mentions the High Priest of True Buddhism).

"Nichiren says the Buddha of Kuon Kanjo..."(but never mentions Kuon Ganjo).

"Nichiren says Shakyamuni Buddha but means Buddha-nature."

    

The authentic transfer documents

The transfer document for the last age [STS 3:25941]

"Our teacher said: "Last age" means the fifth five hundred years that begin the Final Dharma age. The "transfer document" is Namu-myoho-renge-kyo, a document that is handed down as proof of inheritance. There are two meanings in this transfer. One is the designation of successorship; the other is the bestowal of wealth. The designation of successorship means that Sakyamuni named as his heirs the practitioners of the Lotus Sutra. The passage of proof states, "[..desiring to make all beings] equal to me, without difference." (67) As for the transfer of wea1th, Sakyamuni also passed on to the practitioners of the Lotus Sutra his wisdom and the virtues he had obtained by observing the precepts. The passage of proof states, "We have obtained for ourselves the supreme jewel cluster without seeking it." (68) Thus the five characters of the daimoku constitute a transfer document." -- Ongi Kikigaki

There is no transfer document other than Namu Myoho renge kyo, the scrolls of the Gohonzon, Lotus Sutra, and writings of Nichiren Daishonin

The Chapter of the Measure of Life of the Tathagata

The Juryo-hon [16th] Chapter of the Lotus Sutra is the Buddha's eternal nature of compassion and represents the Reward Body of the Eternal Buddha. It is also found in the disciples and believers of Nichiren Daishonin.

Question for SGI

With all the emphasis Nichiren placed on Shakyamuni Buddha and the Lotus Sutra, why aren't they mentioned in your silent prayers?

Would you tell a little league baseball player, "You are a hall of famer just as you are."

Then why does SGI tell their members, "You are a Buddha just as you are."?

We are the Nichijus of the modern era

Nichiju practiced, studied and pondered the teachings of all the various established Nichiren sects and concluded they all had gone against the fundamental spirit of the Daishonin. He denounced them and devoted himself to shakabuku both the Regent and the people.

How about you?

"Still, since he believed deeply in Shakyamuni Buddha and the Lotus Sutra, in his last moment he was splendidly composed. He certainly went to the pure land of Eagle Peak where his father dwells. They must have had a joyful reunion. How wonderful! How wonderful!" -- Nichiren

"Never fails" or "always fails"

Nichiren teaches that when the Lotus Sutra is placed in front of an appropriate image, the image "NEVER FAILS" to become the Buddha of the pure and perfect teaching. The Nichiren Shoshu priesthood says it ALWAYS FAILS unless the Eye Opening is done by one of them.