argue that Nichiren Daishonin should have openly stated in that Gosho that
he inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon, making its existence widely known!
||This argument is based on setting
a condition on what Nichiren Daishonin should have done after inscribing
the Dai-Gohonzon. There are several important reasons why the Gosho does
not specifically mentions the Dai-Gohonzon:
the Dai-Gohonzon Was Inscribed
The Dai-Gohonzon was not inscribed
for Gosho recipients, but for the future generations of believers yet to
appear at the coming stages of the global Kosen-Rufu movement. For this
reason, revealing it in a letter at the time of its inscription would have
been completely irrelevant to the daily life and local circumstances of
any recipient of the Gosho.
of All Gohonzon
The idea that a Gohonzon is "valid"
only with a letter from the Daishonin (concerning its inscription) undermines
the validity of all Gohonzons which were not accompanied by a special letter
of endorsement. In addition to individual Gohonzons, Nichiren inscribed
“general” Gohonzons, (called also Maha Mandalas or Dai-Honzon), and none
of them was accompanied by a special Gosho about its inscription.
For example, there is no letter of
endorsement to the general Dai-Gohonzon known as the Mannen Kudo Dai-Honzon,
which is enshrined today at Hota MyoHonji temple (also referred to as Dai-Honzon
for the Security of the Nation). Lack of a letter of confirmation about
its inscription does not indicate that this particular DaiHonzon was not
inscribed by the Daishonin, or that it is somehow invalid.
The DaiGohonzon was inscribed in
1279 in an intense atmosphere of hostility and aggression against Nichiren’s
disciples, culminating in the execution of three followers from Atsuhara.
The Daishonin’s first concern was the security of his followers and the
protection of the transmission of his doctrines. There are many passages
in the Gosho in which Nichiren Daishonin warns his disciples not to reveal
important doctrines (and in particular, the Gohonzon), but to keep it secret.
This cautious approach was a manifestation of his wisdom to ensure the
survival of the teachings. It was also his compassion and care for the
protection and security of his followers.
This work has been compiled by
individual SGI members and is solely our personal opinion, based on years
of practice and study.