Talk:Gohonzon

This article needs
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)

The image
I added an image from Commons in June 2012, because for an article dicussing such a visual object, an image is pretty essential. Subsequently the use of the image was questioned on the basis that some schools prohibit its reproduction. I am sorry if its inclusion gives offence to anyone, but would like to point out that per WP:NOTCENSORED the primary test for contentious content is relevance to the article, not potential objectionableness. The policy is quite clear on this point: Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. Mcewan (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I have read the policy you've referenced, and have to agree that there's no grounds to remove image based on the policies of some of the schools.
 * That having been said I suggest that it would be important to move the information in the Article - that certain schools (i.e. Sōka Gakkai, Nichiren Shōshū etc.) discourage/do not allow images to be taken/displayed - to it's own sub-section in the Handling of the Gohonzon section as it's a major point in some schools. Mollari08 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I agree that this is useful information. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I reinserted the image of the Gohonzon as it is available in commons. Its not an image of a Gohonzon issued by organisations regarding it to be disrespectful to show such image. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Nichiren Shu calls it a "Gohonzon" but rather "O'Honzon", so I would disagree with the "slant" claim above. Nichiren Shu would rather have relevance on a page titled "O'Honzon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the Lunatic (talk • contribs) 12:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nichiren Shu and all of the other sects with an English presence call their Object of Worship the Gohonzon. I would point to a google word search of the Nichiren Shu official web page (www.nichiren-shu.org) for confirmation. I'm not sure where the "O'Honzon" came from. The pictorial Gohonzon, which is pictured in the article, is called a "Omandala (Go)Honzon", as Nichiren Shu also uses statues as their Object of Worship (to Nichiren Shu, both the pictorial Gohonzon and the statue Gohonzon represent the same thing). So I don't think a separate article is necessary. At most, perhaps an additional section that explains Nichiren Shu's theology behind the Gohonzon, which is somewhat different from either SGI or Nichiren Shoshu interpretation, would address these concerns. 60.229.3.82 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved page
I've taken the liberty of moving the page to "Gohonzon (Nichiren Buddhism)" to denote the difference between a "Honzon", the general term for any Buddhist image in a home or temple (of which an article exists already), and the "Gohonzon" of Nichiren Buddhism. The article seems to take a Nichiren Buddhist point of view anyway. Tktru (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Tktru, my response is very late, I'm afraid. I agree with your concern although I don't believe the solution is to create another article.  Rather, I think the solution is to substantiate the editors' claims that any Buddhist image is a Go-honzon.  This is a claim I have never seen in any of my readings.
 * BrandenburgG (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Way too late a response, but substantiating that the term "honzon" refers to any Buddhist image held as the principal image of a temple is as easy as opening a goddamned Japanese-English dictionary. The sheer pedantry of wiki editors is frustrating sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.71.224.156 (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Lack of citations
Many of the sections of this article are lacking in citations and might consist of OR. I will mark several places where citations are sorely needed. BrandenburgG (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The more I read the article the more I see how much work it needs. Unless citations are provided this article, important topic though it is, must be seen as primarily original research.  In particular I am concerned that the definition of the Gohonzon found in dictionaries I've consulted all refer to the application to Nichiren Buddhism.  The prior editors argue that all Japanese religions, as well as schools outside of Japan, have a Gohonzon.  This constitutes WP:OR and WP:POV until citations can be provided.
 * BrandenburgG (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Tokuburai, you stated earlier this month "A Gohonzon, not just Honzon itself is completely universal to all Japanese Buddhist sects regardless of denomination. The word is used in many Japanese langa...)" [the rest of the citation was cut off]. I am sure you are well-informed on this matter but I think this article which would be much improved if you could provide sources (preferably English sources) to substantiate this claim.  My quick searches on Google and Google Books did not return sources to substantiate your claim, especially in the earlier pages of returns.
 * BrandenburgG (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tokuburai, I really would like to work together with you to improve this article. It is my experience that articles are much better when there is collaboration, and differences in POV come together with dialogue. Let's get started soon! BrandenburgG (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring of article to follow sources
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)

I want to take a break to give others a chance to leave feedback. There are other statements in the article that refer to Nichiren Buddhism and should be moved to the Nichiren Buddhism section. Although I added a couple of citations (dictionary.com and Causton), the article is still very weak, lacking in RS, and therefore OR. It will take a lot of work to bring it to an acceptable level.

I would like to suggest that we start from the top, paragraph by paragraph, to provide readers with RSs. BrandenburgG (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Need for arbitration?
@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)

Priority real estate for statements backed by RS
I am calling on all editors interested in improving this page to find reliable sources to back up the many statements here that remain unsupported.

In the interim I would like to give priority in the lede to statements supported by RS. I would like to move unsupported statements to the bottom of the article. BrandenburgG (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @2605:e000:218a:2d00:39a5:12dc:e772:9ce0, "https://www.tofugu.com/japan/omamori-japanese-charms/" is the flimsiest of sources to claim that your preferred definition of the gohonzon is more basic than the Nichiren calligraphy (regardless of Nichiren school). For example, a simple search on "gohonzon" on Bing (https://www.bing.com/search?q=gohonzon&qs=PF&cvid=68f670c8a0844c72b26b0691c2e0cbf2&pq=gohonzon&first=1&FORM=PERE) brings back more than a dozen pages of references to the gohonzon in the Nichiren tradition, without the tofugu source popping up.


 * I am rewriting this section. I am also disappointed that you have not made any comments on this Talk page where the matter can be discussed civilly.


 * If need be I believe we should go to arbitration about the matter.
 * BrandenburgG (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong objections
@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)

Categorization scheme
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)

History section
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)


 * 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)

Really, really, really needs work!
This article just has no flow. In the "History" section are things that belong in "Description." I have no idea what "Pious beliefs concerning the origin of mandalas and devotional statues" means. What are pious beliefs? (BTW, in the SG at least--arguably in Nichiren Buddhism as a whole--, there is no sense of pious, sacred, holy, etc.) When talking about "origin" doesn't that mean "History"? If there is a section about "History" and "Description," there really should be a section about "Significance". The article suffers from collectivism--trying to make all types of beliefs fit under one umbrella. Wouldn't it be better to have subsections for Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, Soka Gakkai so their respective viewpoints can be authentically described without artificially squeezing them under the same umbrella? Ugh!!!! BrandenburgG (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @tokuburai, you added two sources to the lead of this article. Both do not support what you claim they support: "while in mainstream Japanese culture and religious lexicon, a Go-Honzon refers to any tangible object of devotion within the scope of Buddhism in Japan .  I checked this source and found out that it only translates a gohonzon as "an object of worship." There is nothing in this source that discusses ""mainstream Japanese culture," "religious lexicon," or "within the scope of Buddhism.  Your contribution here is highly problematic.


 * Then you use pp. 153 and 161 of the Nakamaka book (https://books.google.com/books?id=mOArBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hirochika+Nakamaki&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsu4zzjsjTAhUCMSYKHcWWBFYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=gohonzon&f=false) to support "whether a statue or set of statues, a painted scroll, an ancestry Ihai (spirit tablet), deceased ashes, representing ones ancestors, an elemental substance used in a ceremony, or some other religious object that is venerated by the Buddhist faithful." At the best this is WP:OR because the source gives some examples of gohonzon being moved or installed in Brazilian temples and is in no way a scholarly source to defend the text. At its worst, it is misleading and fraudulent research.


 * In reality these two sentences and their accompanying "citations" should be entirely removed. For the time being, I am just going to move them to another section to give you the opportunity to find appropriate sources.

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

First step: the lead
Quite a bit of time has elapsed. I still believe this article needs extensive rewriting. But I would like to suggest that editors start with the lead. A good lead should follow the guidelines in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section. The article has a about a hundred lines about the gohonzon in Nichiren Buddhism and about five lines about the Gohonzon in non-Nichiren sects. Yet the current lede starts with a definition of the gohonzon in non-Nichiren traditions. This is an unbalanced reflection of the article itself. BrandenburgG (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Check out the article about Mandala. There is no reference to gohonzon outside of Nichiren Buddhism.

Rissho Koseikai
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)

Sorry...this turns out to be a bogus source. I will keep searching.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC) BrandenburgG (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rewrites
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)

Pious Beliefs....
I've been making steady progress on revising this article, starting from the top. I'm currently working of the Description subsubsection. Soon I will get to the History.

I figure by next week Iwill get to the Pious Beliefs section. IMHO this section does not work at all. It is OR for the most part. It is without any secondary sources. In fact the only only source is Nichiren's writings.

I don't understand its purpose either. I don't even understand what is a "pious belief."

My suggestion is that this subsubsection be deleted in its entirety. I don't want to do it unilaterally and would appreciate other opinions. Thank you. BrandenburgG (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) BrandenburgG (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @JimRenge, thanks for removing this section based on WP:OR. I would like to propose replacing it with a subsection that describes the respective viewpoints about the Gohonzon expressed by Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, and SG.

Move II
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)


 * 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)

I would like to start parsing these two articles. Originally the current Gohonzon article was titled Gohonzon (Nichiren). This article still exists but redirects to the current article. The original concept is still preferred, IMHO. Now there is a stronger Honzon article so there is now better reason to parse the two articles.

I added a "See also Honzon" template at the start of the article. I hope this can be helpful for readers who want information about Honzon vs. Gohonzon (Nichiren). BrandenburgG (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This article should be brodened to include the five types of Gohonzon that Nichiren established, the Mandala Gohonzon is only one of the five gohonzons that Nichiren had stablished Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Description
This section needs some improvement. I think it is trying to accomplish too much under one heading.

I broke down one paragraph so the more theological descriptions of the Gohonzon are separated from "colloquial" descriptions.

I think it needs one more restructuring. There should be two subsections, I would like to recommend. The new subsection could be entitled "Typology of the Gohonzon" and would describe each of the characters on the Gohonzon. Right now it is descriptive in a general sense. There are several diagrams of the Gohonzon on the web but they are not in the public domain. Has anyone seen a diagram that is open for use? @JimRenge, would you know of one? BrandenburgG (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I have not seen a pd diagram. JimRenge (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going ahead with the revision I proposed. Also, I created a visual of the "topology" of the Gohonzon which I will post in a few days. BrandenburgG (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are so many versions of Gohonzon, written by both Nichiren and his successors, that it is not possible, I see, to create one "topology." Research and models on this is also limited to several self-published books which, regrettably, are not accepted by WP. Therefore I decided to focus on the 1720 Nichikan Gohonzon that is used by the SG. Arguably there are more of this version of the Gohonzon "out there" than any other.


 * I have a prototype of this on my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox). I would like to receive feedback.  I plan on incorporating this into the Gohonzon article over the next couple of days.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for confusion but please leave feedback here and not on my Sandbox. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem with the description of the Nichikan Mandala in the center part it says that the name Nikko appears in the Mandala Gohonzon this is incorrect the name Nikko does not appear in the center of this Mandala Gonzalopena25 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Schools
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)

He stated that by using sumi ink to inscribe it he was acting like a "lion king."[13]
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)

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
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)

Eliminate the "Controversy Section"
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)

Reference to the Object of Devotion in terms of the person
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)

== 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 ==

Again this an interpretation exclusive of Nichiren Shoshu and SGI Gonzalopena25 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The moji-mandala gohonzon or "Mandala gohonzon" (曼荼羅御本尊) is the primary object of devotion in Nichiren schools.
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)