The Ita-Dai-Go-Honzon Issue


Link to an enhanced version of the 1910 photo of the
Taisekiji DaiGohonzon
======================================================================================================
There is an excellent essay at fortunechildbooks.com by Hope Evers: Where is Nichiren’s Reference to the Dai Gohonzon?
AUTHORS NOTE: “The conclusions regarding the Dai Gohonzon in this article are based on the letter by Nichiren (1222-1282) titled “On Persecutions Befalling the Sage” (1279) (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin (WND) (Soka Gakkai, Tokyo, 1999). I used this letter as my primary source because, unlike any other writing of Nichiren’s, according to the letter’s background information provided in WND, “it contains the sole allusion to his [Nichiren's] inscription of the object of devotion for all humanity as the purpose of his life” (WND p. 998). ” — Hope Evers
************************************************************************************************************************************
Letting go of the Taisekiji DaiGohonzon Myth
Posted by rbeck at May 5, 2005 08:56 AM

Someone wrote to me:… but the belief in the Ita Mandara has become a strong pillar of the Nikko school
Actually, only in the Taisekiji faction of the Nikko School. Honmon Shoshu believes the Yashiro Kunishige Memorial Daimandara was transferred to wood in the 17th century and later became confused with the Daigohonzon, which is the Red Pine Mannen Kugo Dai(go)honzon, eye-opened on the same date in 1279, and the same face image as the Daihonzon of 1274. Honmon Shoshu was apparently the same lineage as Taisekiji, up to Nichiu, sometime after that, they divide?
There are also Nichiren Shu-Kitayama, Honmon Shu-Nishiyama, the Independent Hota-Myohonji, the Nichiren Shu Abutsobo-Sado-Myosenji lineage and Nichiren Honshu-Kyoto; all in the Nikko-Fuji School. None of these see the Taisekiji Ita Mandala as especially significant, some even see it as a possible forgery, intended to asssert Taisekiji authority over the other temples.
Also, someone wrote: I know a friend (ex-NST and SGI) who had a kind of mystic experience in its presence. … snipped … (If we accept ichinen sanzen and the buddhahood of non-sentient objects, for me the Taisekiji Gohonzon is endowed with the state of Buddha}
I understand this feeling. For me, it was like finding out we were adopted. And even though our step parents were a little abusive, we learned some things of value. Maybe the initial response is denial, then reconciiation, then maybe yearning to find our biological parents?
I never saw the Ita Mandala in person. However, I had the same life changing mystic experience chanting daimoku, while contempating the Nittatsu Gohonzon, in my own living room in 1980. The world of Buddha is always manifested in the Gohonzon, no matter which one, whether we see it or not.
For two years, I have read everything on this I can find. IMCO, the Ita Mandala is NOT the Daigohonzon. It is the Yashiro Kunishige Memorial Daimandara. A Yashiro is mentioned in the Gosho. He was maybe a noble of some rank who was murdered for his beliefs 49 days before October 12 1279. That Gosho, the Ryusenji Petition, is apparently not yet translated.
Maybe it is neither helpful nor kind to get the word out on this. But allowing these errors to continue be propagated only causes even more confusion for more people in the future. To do so is more unkind and less helpful than getting the truth out. It is like any other error. The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to correct. Meanwhile, SGI still professes unfounded allegiance to an object owned by our former temple?
written with right intentions I hope,
robin Posted by rbeck at May 5, 2005 08:56 AM
Here are a s series of essays I have wriiten on “Nichiu, the Ita-Dai-Honzon, & the Yashiro Daimandara” — robin:
01-21-2006
The Ita-Dai-Go-Honzon Issue
On Nichiren’s Gohonzon for Practicing Kanjin

There are three basic concepts here that might get confused. One is the origin of the object itself. The “Nichiu created it {or bought it}” theory is not as dubious as the “Nippo found a log legend”, but it has some holes. While ‘a’ wooden Dai-Honzon is mentioned in the late 15th C. context of Nichiu, there is no detailed description. This came up as a side issue during an internal Nikko-Fuji faction debate that Nichiu lost. Nichiu was trying to re-claim ownership of the Renzo-bo sub-Temple from the nearby Koizumi Kuon Temple.
In fact, descriptions from circa 1482 could indicate a different image than wfat we see on the Taisekiji Dai Mandara Dai Gohonzon. In 1482, the term Dai-Honzon would indicate an image drawn by Nichiren in 1274. And the first detailed description of the Taisekiji Dai Mandara so-called Dai Gohonzon carved in camphor is from around 1660.
The second is the idea that Nichiren may have inscribed a particular image to be enshrined in the Honmon-no-Kaidan. Even if he did, is there any evidence it was the Taisekiji Dai Mandara? A corallary question is the identity of Yashiro Kunishige, and the meaning of “Honmon no Kaidan no Ganshu no Hokkeshu.”
Finally, there is the Nichiren Shoshu assertion that “All the other Gohonzons He inscribed may be viewed as reflections of the [their so-called] Dai-Gohonzon.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
August 14, 2005
Nichiu, the Ita-Dai-Honzon, & Yashiro Dai-Mandara

I understand that one of the oldest historical references to a Great Honzon of 1279, carved in wood, and kept at Taisekiji, dates to the time of Nichiu; about 1482.
Note: There is also a dubious transmission document from Nikko to Nichimoku allegedly dated 1330, NikkoAtoJojonoKoto.rtf, that mentions a Great Go-Honzon of 1279. This is allegedly written in Nikko’s hand; see photo. At any rate, I am not disputing that a Wooden Dai-Go-Honzon of 1279 may have existed in 1330.
From what I have read, a Priest at Kitayama accused Nichiu of forging this Ita (plank) Honzon. Then, in a reply to Kitayama, Nichiu stated, as a defence, that his Temple possessed the original Great Mandala of 1279, the one that Nichiren had bestowed on Yashiro and the Hokke Shu.
I supect Nichiu was referring to two different objects. One was an Ita-Dai-Honzon, or the Dai-Honzon of 1274 carved into wood. The word Ita means plank or board. There is no reference to it being carved in Camphor Wood.
Nichiu apparently also refers to a Great Mandala, an original Nichiren, in other words –on paper –, bestowed on Yashiro, that Taisekiji had inherited. An authenticated Gosho indicates that a Yashiro was beheaded, in late August 1279, by Hei-no-Saemon, for refusing to recant his faith, among other things. October 12 1279 was, perhaps, the 49th day after his death. Posted by rbeck at August 14, 2005 00:15 PM
July 18, 2005
More on the Yashiro Kunishige Memorial Daimandara

This is a topic that is truly Fraught with Peril. To begin with, the Daigohonzon was initially the name for the paper Mandala that Nichiren wrote at Minobu in 1274. More on that in a future entry.
The earliest refence to a controversial wooden mandala called the Daigohonzon of 1279 apparently dates from the later years of Nichiu. This was some 200 years after Nichiren’s passing. Nichiu is regarded as the 9th Chief Priest of Taisekiji. His contemporary at Kityama accused Nichiu of forging this Ita-Mandara {Ita means board}.
In one of his letters, Nichiu states that Taisekiji inherited the Yashiro Kunishige Daimandara, one that was inscribed by Nichiren himself on October 12 1279. IIRC, most scholars have assumed that the Ita-Mandara/Daigohonzon of 1279 and the Yashiro Daimandara of 1279 are the same Mandala.
IMCO, this hasty assumption might be wrong. I think it is much more likely that the Yashiro Daimandara Nichiu refers to was a paper mandala. That is why he stated Nichiren himself inscribed it. Nichiren would not have inscribed a wooden Mandala himself.
As to the Ita-Mandara Daigohonzon of 1279, Nichikan Shonin (1665-1726) , the twenty-sixth Chief priest of Taisekiji, allegedy decribed the Daigohonzon of 1279 as being a wooden copy of the Daihonzon of 1274. [I have been unable to verify this]
Also, the earliest clear reference to a camphor wood version of the Yashiro Daimandara is from the Edo Period {1603-1867}. Therefore, it is very possible that the paper Yashiro Daimandara Nichiu referenced was transferred to wood during the Edo period. This Edo Period Ita Mandala would be the one Taisekiji now mistakenly regards as the Daigohonzon of 1279?
Actually the first mention of the Ita Mandara from outside Taisekiji is apparently found in the “Kecho Sho” , dated 1662. This is the first mention of Camphor Wood. Posted by rbeck at July 18, 2005 05:15 PM
More Completed Essays in this Topic:
Board Mandalas & Hokke Shu
The Gain & Loss or Benefit & Curse Inscriptions
Gohonzon of Ichienbudai? — Memoranda & Dedications; Lower Right Side Dedication
Tweaked Translations? — Memoranda & Dedications; Lower Lower Left Side Memoranda
Who Was Yashiro Kunishige?

************************************************************************************************************************************
Comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One comment. I think all the calligraphy mandalas, odaimoku tablets, and even some statuary arrangements, are, in a general sense, “true and authentic [honzon] for all of mankind”. However; “the Daihonzon for the peace and security of all mankind for 10000 years” does refer to a specific image, that on the face of mandala #16, inscribed at Minobu in 1274.
I still am unsure about the Honinmyo Daihonzon of 1279. And I presently disagree with some of the interpretations of Honmon Shoshu, like Nichiren as the Eternal Buddha/Father of the Juryo Chapter. This upside down understanding of Hongaku appears to have entered the Taisekiji lineages with the 9th Abbot Nichiu, who learned it from Nishiyama-Nichigen. It started with Hongaku Nichidai of the Fuji-Kyoto lineage. Only Honmon Shoshu & Nichiren Shoshu retain it. It is the same problem the Christians have with misinterpreting “the I am one with g-d” concept, and applying that literally, to mean that Jesus was g-d, and the only one.
This is the Latter Day of the Dharma of the Buddha Shakyamuni. Nichiren was the Messenger.
robin
Posted by: robin at May 4, 2005 11:00 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Robin,
How sure are you that image # 16 of the Gohonzon Shu was really named the “Man-nen-ku-go” Dai-honzon by Nichiren himself? Is there anything extant in Nichiren’s writings to this effect, or does this idea come from an oral tradition of unverifiable authenticity?
Lately, I have been immersing myself, almost exclusively, in the writings of Nichiren. What I have been finding there makes me question the validity of the “Dai-mandara”/”Dai-honzon” distinction. For example, in the Kyo’o Dono Gohenji, Nichiren writes: “In inscribing this Gohonzon…Nichiren was like the lion king.” He then follows that up with, “Believe in this mandala with all your heart.” It seems clear to me, that “mandala” and “(Go)honzon” refer to one and the same thing in Nichiren’s mind. To further illustrate this; in the Nichinyo Gozen Go-henji, Nichiren writes: “This Mandala is not my creation but is the honzon created by Sakyamuni and other Buddhas in the Stupa of Treasures.” He then goes on to describe a full Ten Worlds (from Hell to Buddhahod) Great Mandala honzon, after which he continues with the following doctrinally provocative statement: “Thus without exception, all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, great sages, and eight groups of creatures in the two realms (of Desire and Matter) who were present in the first ‘Introductory’ chapter of the sutra are all seated in the honzon. Illuminated by rays of light emanating from the characters ‘Namu Myoho Renge-kyo,’ all have been transformed into Buddhas, whom they originally were. This is the honzon…” After which Nichiren writes: “…this honzon is the Great Mandala…” And, “the honzon can be called the Mandala…” Given these passages, I must conclude that the words “(Go)honzon” and “Mandala” both refer to the same thing. The Honzon is a mandala. The Mandala is a honzon. This being the case, I do not believe that the argument for distinguishing item # 16, in the Gohonzon Shu, from all of the other Great Mandala/Honsons can be sustained.
Ernesto
Posted by: Ernesto at May 9, 2005 09:18 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Ernesto,
I actually agree from one standpoint, that is why I have suggested there are various arrangements that are vaild as Honzon.
My main interest, initially, was figuring out the references to the Dai(go)honzon of 1279. I think these are references to an image ‘named’ the Dai-honzon. {Do you agree the character for Go or O is irrelevant?}. I read that there are 12 daimandara dated 1279. I have no idea which ones those are.
BTW, the transmittal on the Yashiro Kunishige Daimandara includes the characters for Honzon, I think. It reads something like that the Hokke Koshu should use this daimandara as the Honzon for their Kaidan. That is why I suspect the Wooden Copy at Taisekiji was carved by Nichiji {6th Abbot at Taisekiji} for a lay Sangha.
Anyway, my tentative view is Nichiren named the 10 world’s Honzon the Daimandara; and another image the Daihonzon. I was told the Simple Mandala Honzon with the Daimoku and two Buddhas has a name too.
The name Mannen Kugo is a puzzler. Nichiren Shu uses that term for #016. I am curious how far back that goes. There is a lot we do not know.
Anyone know what the earliest reference is to a Honzon for the Peace & Security of Humanity for 10,000 years?
I think the distinction between Mandala and Honzon is this: A Mandala is one of several objects that can be used as a Honzon. That seems clear from the Gosho? We can not point to one thing and say ‘this is Honzon’ to the exclusion of all others.
We can point to an image and say this one is called the Daimandara of the Ten Worlds; the 1280 Nissho, and the one Nichiren Shu calls the Shutei Mandala {also from 1280} are examples.
Note the latter was only recently designated
“Shutei”, that is not its original name.
robin
Posted by: ryoben at May 9, 2005 10:43 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It seems clear to me, that “mandala” and “(Go)honzon” refer to one and the same thing in Nichiren’s mind.” — Ernesto?
Hi again. It seems to me that Nichiren also accepted certain statue arrangements, the Odaimoku tablet, the Scrolls of the Lotus Sutra, and other things as Honzons — not just mandalas, and not just one specific type of mandala.
Also, some Mandalas were not acceptable Honzons to Nichiren — those eye opened with the Shingon ritual of his time. So I think he was concerned with intent? What do you think?
robin
Posted by: ryoben at May 9, 2005 10:53 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Robin,
I agree with you that Nichiren was more concerned with “intent” than with the actual form the Honzon took. In the Kanjin Honzon Sho, Nichiren actually describes a number of different types of Honzon, they include the calligraphic Mandala, as well as statues and paintings of the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha accompanied by the Four Great Bodhisattvas from the Earth. As we all know, Nichiren had a statue of Shakyamuni that he worshipped as the Eternal Buddha, he mentions this in his writings. Also, Shijo Kingo carved a statue of Shakyamuni, to which Nichiren responded by writing to him about the correct manner in which to have its “eye” opened, warning him against having it done by means of Shingin rites. I don’t recall seeing in his writings any mention of a “great” mandala or honzon versus a not-so-great mandala or honzon. Therefore I tend not to put much stock in the idea, believing instead in the efficacy of them all. Why, after all, would Nichiren confer on some of his disciples and followers something less efficacious than that confered on others? Since the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra contains the entirety of said Sutra and therefore all Ten Worlds, a honzon as simple as the Daimoku only, is, by definition, just as efficacious as a full Ten Worlds “Dai”-mandala honzon. However, as a matter of personal taste, I do prefer a honzon that has not been dedicated to any particular individual, such as the Hon-in-myo Dai-honzon mandala, the Shutei Dai-mandala honzon, or the “Big Girl” that I acquired from Kaiundo and have enshrined on my family altar.
Ernesto
Posted by: Ernesto at May 10, 2005 05:29 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto,
I am going to look at the Honinmyo Daihonzon again in a future blog. I still think it is plausible that Nichiren may have had that engraved for a central Kaidan. I just need to stop thinking about it for a while, if that makes sense. And even if so, I do not accept it as a super-honzon, superior to others.
Also, I am leaving all this thread open for comments. The more the better.
Posted by: ryoben at May 10, 2005 08:22 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin,
You have been unearthing a veritable treasure trove of information. It probably is a good idea to back off for a bit, and to let all of this information sink in. Then you will be in a better frame of mind for putting all of the new pieces of this information-puzzle together.
BTW, I must say that you are doing the Nichiren Buddhist community a great service here. Your passion for research and sharing new information with others is positively awsome.
Ernesto
Posted by: Ernesto at May 10, 2005 01:11 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Onodera Nichiu was the one who hid the Hon-in-myou Daihonzon at the Onodera stronghold of Ide-no-oana. From that time, Taisekiji ceased to be the Honmon-no-Kaidan.
You won’t be surprised to know that Taisekiji’s 26th chief priest Nichikan wrote the “Exegesis of the Kanjin Honzon-sho” (Kanjin Honzon-sho Mondan).
But you might be surprised to know what Nichikan wrote. In that very exegesis, he described the Dai(go)honzon as having the following inscriptions.
“Following the Great Awakened World Honored One’s reversion to extinguishment, more than two thousand two hundred and twenty years have passed. Even so, within the three countries: Gatsu, Kan and Nichi, this Daihonzon had yet to exist. Either they knew but did not propagate, or they did not know this at all. Our compassionate Father, by means of the Hotoke wisdom, hide and leave this for the future age of degeneration. At that time during the latter 500 hundred years, Bodhisattva Jogyo makes His appearance in the world, and for the first time, widely propagates this.”
Do these words seem familiar to you?
It means to say, the Yashiro Kunishige Daimandara was never regarded as the Dai(go)honzon in the first place, until lately. It is proof that by Nichikan’s time, the Dai(go)honzon was no longer at Taisekiji.
Get your copy today.
Posted by: eddy at April 28, 2005 04:30 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Eddy,
Thank you for the comments. By ‘get your copy’, do you mean of the Dai(go)honzon or Nichikan’s Exegesis of the Kanjin Honzon-sho?
By the way, I jumped forward in this series because there is still a lot of confusion about the blessing/curse inscriptions on the Yashiro
Memorial Daimandara.
Part VII will be logically be the Daihonzon of 1274; since that is next Mandala Gohonzon I have any information about.
So far, I have covered the Aizen-Fudo Kankenki, the Soseino Amulet, the Preliminary Mandalas, the Odaimoku Tablet, Ichinen Sanzen Mandala, and the Daimandara of July 8 1273.
More information on any of these would be useful. I wonder if you or anyone else reading knows if the Daimandara of July 8 1273 still exists? If so, where is it, is it in good condition, and is it published in the Gohonzon Shu?
We can also discuss the confusion over what is the Dai(go)honzon more later on. Readers should know what the Memorial Daimandara is; and that it appears Nikko and his immediate successors wrote similar mandaras; with the blessing/curse phrases.
As more information is available, we are starting to see why certain schools do not want certain documents translated.
Posted by: robin at April 28, 2005 07:57 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Robin,
I was refering to the Exegesis.
Gohonzonshu Nos.
1. dated Oct 9, 1271 (Bunei 8)
2. dated Jun 16, 1272 (Bunei 9)
3a to 10. Undated.
11. dated Jun 1273 (Bunei 10)
12. Undated.
13. dated Jul 25, 1274 (Bunei 11)
14 & 15. dated Nov 1274 (Bunei 11)
16. dated Dec 1274 (Bunei 11)
17 & 18. Undated
19. dated January (the year is unwritten)
20 to 24. dated Apr 1275 (Bunei 12)
25. Undated
26. dated October, 1275 (Kenji 1)
I’m afraid, there are no mandalas in the Gohonzonshu that contains the date Jul 8, 1273.
Posted by: eddy at April 28, 2005 12:36 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks again,
I hate to impose on you. To my credit, I am willing to get out the Honmon Shoshu story. But I am skeptical.
It is possible that the July 8 1273 Daimandara was added at a later date, and is in out of order. It may also be one of the three that Bichiren Shu has declined to publish. The fact that they published some detials about it indicates they may have it.
I noticed in Don Ross’ index he shows #10 as
First Gohonzon Inscribed by Nichiren. I am not sure what that means. Someone told me Nichiren wrote that at one Echigo or Teradomari with a twig brush while waiting to be taken to Sado.
I thought maybe it was severely water damaged and most of the inscriptions are gone.
robin
Posted by: robin at April 28, 2005 01:29 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I noticed in Don Ross’ index he shows #10 as First Gohonzon Inscribed by Nichiren. Someone told me Nichiren wrote that at one Echigo or Teradomari with a twig brush while waiting to be taken to Sado. I thought maybe it was severely water damaged and most of the inscriptions are gone.”
It is mentioned that the mandara of Jul 8, 1273 is 2 feet 6 inches x 5 feet 8 inches.
Unfortunately, the stated dimensions of mandara #10 is only 4.7 inches x 8.9 inches.
If mandara #10 was inscribed while waiting to be taken to Sado, the date has to be 1271, not 1273.
Posted by: eddy at April 28, 2005 02:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eddie,
Yes, that was what I was thinking. Most likely, the July 8 1273 mandala is not published. So that is very likely the third that Nichiren Shu does not wish to publish for proprietary reasons.
The others would be the Nichiro Prayer Gohonzon and Nichiren’s Last Gohonzon.
Posted by: robin at April 28, 2005 03:40 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Robin,
I just want to slip a little kudos in. Your writings and the images you post are a real treat. I’m learning so much more from you (and other scribes at FWP) in the last few months than I have these last years of study elsewhere.
Gabrielle
Posted by: Gabrielle Wiseq at April 29, 2005 11:13 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Someone asked me a question yesterday, and I thought it was relevant to share. First, he quoted the Exegesis as saying: “The Dai-Gohonzon of 1279, or the Gohonzon of the High Sanctuary of True Buddhism, is the ultimate Gohonzon of all. Its inscription signifies the ultimate of all the reasons for the Daishonin’s advent. It is the supreme basis of the Three Great Secret Laws. Therefore, it is the true object of devotion for all humanity in the whole world.”
He then asked: “How is that description not refering to the Dai-Gohonzon at Taisekiji?”
I replied that the inscription on the Yashiro Memorial Dai-mandara pale in comparison to all the inscriptions found on the Hon-in-myou Daihonzon with regard to the “…ultimate of all the reasons for the Daishonin’s advent.”
Yes, Nichikan’s Exegesis did mention the “Gohonzon of Koan second year.” But the inscriptions on the Yashiro Kunishige Dai-mandala is not discussed at all. Furthermore, the name “Ganshu Yashiro Kunishige” appear nowhere in the Exegesis. Instead, the inscriptions of the “Kugo Honzon” are mentioned, and examined at length. If the Yashiro Dai-mandara was regarded as the Dai(go)honzon by Nichikan, surely it deserved some mention in the Exegesis. But none, not a word.
The Yashiro Dai-mandara is the Memorial Mandala for Yashiro Kunishige. If we take Oct 12, 1279 as commemorating the 49th day of his death, (which is a common buddhist funerary practice), then counting backwards, we arrive at Aug 24, 1279. This corroborates the Ryusenji Mousijou which states that “Yashiro was killed in August…..”
Posted by: eddy at April 30, 2005 09:10 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem is that the date on the Shihon Mannen Kugo Daihonzon is December 1274, not October 1279. So Nichikan appears to refer to the Yashiro Daimandara as the Daigohonzon, but then proceeds to talk about the Daigohonzon inscribed almost 5 years earlier {1274}.
The answer may lie in the legend of Nippo. Since this is a legend, we can assume some of the details are skewed. A possible explanation is that Nippo carved a wooden version of the Mannen Kugo Daihonzon, and this project was completed on October 12 1279. Suppose that Nichiu did hide the Daihonzon of 1279 to prevent the Shogunate from getting it. Then, when Taisekiji found the Yashiro Daimandara in storage, they mistook it for the Daihonzon.
This is convoluted. But it is no more convoluted than the current Taisekiji legend. Moreover, unlike the Taisekiji story, it does not conflict with other known facts. Such as Nichiu writing that Taisekiji inherited the Mandara Nichiren inscribed for Yashiro from the Hokkekoshu.
robin
Posted by: robin at April 30, 2005 10:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin:
Great stuff. Myself and I’m sure others, who are interested but are not scholarly in this mandala maze genre, would probably like to see you give a bottom line to your thesis – at some point.
This would be an “abstract,” as used in a scholarly paper that would say, for example, Nichiren inscribed the first talisman or amulet on such a such day, the first Gohonzon on blank day/year, and the DaiGohonzon on such and such. Then, the Taisekiji Dai Gohonzon (date) and all the other possibilities candidates and times. This would be followed with your conclusion that indicates who has the original, who has what else, and what if any difference it makes.
Why is this important to me? Because I (we) spent decades praying, praising, and being identified with the Honzon, twice daily. This scholarsip is very important. Some people have a head for it and others, like me, are merely fascinated with it.
I’d love to see the bottom line when you’re ready to deliver it.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at April 30, 2005 11:32 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
My favorite Honzon to chant with is the 1280 Daimandara Nichiren inscribed for Nissho — #101. I still have not decided on a central honzon for ryobenji — projected for 2006.
Of the Taisekiji honzon, I like the Nittatsu. I have a framed 10 X 14 that someone made for me.
Posted by: robin at April 30, 2005 04:40 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles,
Here are some issues:
*I would like to see a translation of the Gohonzon Shu, but unless Eddie does it in little pieces for us, I do not expect it.
*Some of the Temples are rather stingy with information. Example: Even Tanjo-ji does not reply to queries about the Soseino Amulet. The Fuju-Fuse Temples are even stingier.
*There are key Gosho not translated, or if so, not easily accessible. The Ryusenji Mousijo is an example.
*Those who have information tend to dispense it in a partisan manner.
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““