Talk:Gohonzon

message: to be expanded to include the view of other schools of Nichiren Buddhism such as Nichiren Shu. Also, honzon and gohonzon are used by Japanese Buddhist schools other than Nichiren Buddhism, though they do not place the importance on them that Nichiren Buddhists do. Also should have a picture of an example of this artifact, if a non-copyvio version can be found. I'll see if I can take a picture of one, as I know several Nichiren Buddhists of various denominations. In any event, tagging for POV check. HyperZonktalk 19:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I agree with you that the Gohonzon page should include information on the Gohonzons of Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, and other Gohonzons used by Japanese Buddhists. I really don't kow anything about "non-SGI" Gohonzons to be honest, so please feel free to add to what I have already, or change what you feel might be to biased towards the SGI. Also, for the time being, if it helps, I'll be more than happy to make a little note on the bottom of the page explaining this is information on the Gohonzon used by Soka Gakkai and that there are other Gohonzons that exist. Contributed by Butsushin, recovered from history.
Outside Japan the term "Gohonzon" refers to the Gohonzon of Nichiren, however in Japan any object of worship at a temple is called "gohonzon" and similarly taking photos, touching, and so forth is prohibited.  (User: Cycling Nut aka John Thiel, member of SGI since 1988 and former US expat having lived in Japan for 7 years).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclingNut (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs 

message: After waiting for a few days I made some edits to make the article conform with sources.  Until citations are added to prove otherwise, our priority should be with research and not unsubstantiated opinions.  Listed on top are sections that deal with the Gohonzon and Nichiren Buddhism.  Further down are the sections that are not substantiated by sources, mostly opinions that the term "Gohonzon" should be applied to any object of devotion.
BrandenburgG (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring of article to follow sources 

message: @2605:e000:218a:2d00:4837:92d8:a447:c3b4 and @tokuburai.  The last thing I need is an edit war.  I want to work together with you, even though we may have two different perspectives on the definition of the Gohonzon, to create a trusted article. 
But in this endeavor we have to follow WP guidelines.  You may be Ja-ranese, you may be an expert as a butsudan store owner, you may even be right.  But according to WP guidelines your statements must be backed with reliable sources or they remain just "original research."  We have to follow the scholarship.
In a quick search about the Gohonzon on Google Books (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Gohonzon) every single reference supports the definition of the Gohonzon on www.dictionary.com, that it is an object in Nichiren Buddhism.  I tracked 7 pages of references without seeing one to support your contention.
I did a similar search on Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=gohonzon&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33) and I perused four pages of titles (about 40 sources).  Out of the 40 there were 2 that took your POV and 38 that limited their discussion to Nichiren-scrolls.  From the preponderance of research, the majority of the article and real estate should refer to the Gohonzon in Nichiren schools and a much smaller footprint to the more generic understanding of the Gohonzon as an object of devotion for any/all denominations.
The Wikipedia guidelines should supersede your personal opinions, even though you may have unique skills through your profession.
I would like to ask you to acknowledge these points so we can work together to improve what is now a very shaky article.  If you disagree I would like to suggest that we go to arbitration for the wisdom of the community.
BrandenburgG (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for arbitration?

message: @2605:E000:218A:2D00:247D:DF18:30EA:B3F32605:E000:218A:2D00:247D:DF18:30EA:B3F3.  I placed messages in the Talk Page of your User Pages.  I want to pull you into participating in the Talk Page of the Gohonzon article.  I have been opening since April 2016 sections to open dialogue with you.  You have not accepted these invitations.  I am assuming that you are new editors and just might not be aware of this valuable feature of WP editing.
You have both made radical changes and reverts without explaining your rational in Talk page discussions. Can we agree that this is not a productive way to move forward in the future?
Yesterday, in a simple click, you reverted many hours of my work.  I would hope in the future you will recognize the sincerity and efforts of your fellow editors and extend proper courtesies when you want to make a major change.
I am glad that you provided some reliable sources.  This is a good start.  Without RS the article will still be tagged as "stub class" or "original research."  Can we agree to work together to improve the quality of the article?
Our main dispute, I believe, is how to open the article.  You contend that the cultural understanding of the Gohonzon in Japan should start the article; I believe that we should follow the common use of the word in English-language reliable sources.  The lede in WP should summarize and follow the content of the rest of the article.  As you left it, the lede does not reflect the content of the article.
We should talk about this at length in the Talk page and seek guidance from WP protocols.  Eventually we can call in other editors through various arbitration boards to seek a resolution.
In the meanwhile, however, there is so much work to do on the rest of the article so I plan to focus my efforts there and try to resolve our dispute over time.  
BrandenburgG (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong objections 

message: I believe the paragraphs on Shingon and Pure Land are so small (especially in comparison to the Nichiren section) that it is best to place them as subsections under an umbrella section of "In Non-Nichiren" BrandenburgG (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization scheme 

message: There is a lot of content in the History section that would fit better in the Description section.  I would like to work on this and would appreciate help. Thank you.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added more historical content about the inscription of early Gohonzon and writings.  I still want to move content from the history subsection to more appropriate subsections.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I found a couple of reputable academic sources that confirm that RKK refers to its statue of Shakyamunu as its gohonzon. I will add at the next opportunity.
BrandenburgG (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Rissho Koseikai

message: I finished the rewrite of the lead.  I think it is strong and will be accepted by multiple perspectives.
I would like to begin reviewing the next section, Nichiren Buddhism.  I think it needs careful editing. Here is what I propose:
1) switching the "history" and "description" subsections.  I think readers would profit from the context of history before reading a more detailed description.
2) checking for placement.  Right now sentences about description are in history and vice versa.
3) removing  tags as soon as appropriate sources are found.
BrandenburgG (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrites

message: The article does not follow WP:NPOV because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to Nichiren Buddhism. Moving the article to Gohonzon (Nichiren Buddhism) and the addition of a short summary to Honzon might be a simple solution of this problem.
Tktru renamed the article in June 2014: Gohonzon (Nichiren Buddhism). I remember that this move was reverted by Tokuburai or one of the (possibly related) disruptive IP´s.  JimRenge (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree strongly with your suggestion, @JimRenge. The problem with WP:UNDUE does not come from nefarious intent.  Rather, there is simply minimal source material (in English at least) to support @Tokuburai's line of reasoning.  The situation may be different in Japanese WP (I can't read Japanese) but that might be due to different sources there. Otherwise it's a difficult stretch to provide NPOV in one umbrella article.
BrandenburgG (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Move II

message: Changed "primary object of devotion for Nichiren Shu and other Nichiren schools" to "primary object of devotion for Nichiren schools". There is no need to single one out when it applies to many. --Daveler16 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: Even though this has a source which is the gosho "Reply to Kyo-o" the authenticity of this gosho can not be corroborated. There is no original copy of reply to Kyo-o by Nichiren or any of his direct disciples. Thrre is also no mention to Reply to Kyo-o until the 16th century. All Nichiren Schools except for Taisekiji and SGI concider it to be forged.
With regard to Tokubetsu Gohonzons or Omamori Gohonzon there is not enough evidence to say that Nichiren inscribed those. First, on regard to Tokubetsu Gohonzons everything seams to indicate that inscribing such a Msndalas was a development that happen over time after Nichiren's passing. There is no way to tell if a Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren was a Tokubetsu Mandala. There is also no reference in Nichiren's writings to any Tokubetsu Gohonzon. Nichiren was also known to write Gohonzon Mandala of many different styles, and materials depending on what was available to him, he wrote Gohonzons with a stick, when he was unable to get brushes in Sado Island.
Secondly with regard to the Omamori Gohonzon, there is not a single existant Omamori Gohonzon writen by Nichiren, there is not mention in Nichiren's writings to any Omamori Gohonzon. There is a mention to the word Omamori in Nichiren's Writings only once in a letter sent to Shijo Kingo, however Omamori in Japanese culture refers to an amulet, a very common custom in Japanese buddhism and it seams this is what Nichiren sent to Kingo. Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  He stated that by using sumi ink to inscribe it he was acting like a "lion king."[13]  

message: There are two problems here. First, Nichiren did not write his name down bellow Namu Myoho Renge Kyo in any of the Mandala Gohonzons he wrote. At the beginning he wrote his name and seal towards the left side in the bottom in the Mandala.  As years passed his signature and seal moved towards the center bottom of the Mandalas. However, Nichiren never placed his name right under Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. Even in the Gohonzons that were wrote with his name in the bottom center there is a noticeable space between the Daimoku and Nichiren's name.
Secondly the phrase: "This signifies Nichiren's conviction that his life had manifested the essence of the Lotus Sutra." It should be noted that this an interpretation of Nichiren Shoshu, there are no writings by Nichiren to proof this and my first point speaks about this too. No other school but Nichiren Shoshu believes this.
 Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right below, also in bold, Nichiren writes his name followed by his seal. This signifies Nichiren's conviction that his life had manifested the essence of the Lotus Sutra.[39 

message: This section does not  explain about the Gohonzon but instead discusses the doctrinal issues between SGI and Nichiren Shoshu  Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate the "Controversy Section" 

message: The idea that Nichiren Shonin's writing "The Opening of The Eyes" defines Nichiren as the object of devotion in terms of the person is an interpretation of Nichiren Shoshu upheld by SGI, other Nichiren Schools do not agree in this interpretation. Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to the Object of Devotion in terms of the person 

message: Again this an interpretation exclusive of Nichiren Shoshu and SGI  Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  casting off the transient and revealing the true" (Jpn hosshaku-kempon), at which time he claimed to have discarded his transient status and revealed his essential identity as the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law.[5 

message: This is incorrect, the Mandala Gohonzon is not the primary Gohonzon in all Nichiren Schools. Nichiren Shoshu and SGI are the only schools to use exclusively a Mandala Gohonzon and none of the other 4 kinds of Gohonzon that Nichiren prescribed. In his writings Nichiren described five Gohonzons which include the mandala Gohonzon, a mandala consiting only in the Daimoku, or different settings or convinentions of statues. All the other Nichiren Schools use Mandalas and statues as Gohonzons. Gonzalopena25 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The moji-mandala gohonzon or "Mandala gohonzon" (曼荼羅御本尊) is the primary object of devotion in Nichiren schools.