Robin Beck

The Distribution of the Mementoes/Responses to Hirahara

The Succession Issue Controversy

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Reply to Lord Hara {Hakiri} by Nikko Shonin (1246-1333):
Hara Dono Gohenji {Excerpts}: Download file
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hara Dono Gohenji {Letter to Lord Hara [Hakiri]}:
partial translation offered by John Ayres at arbn
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hara Dono Gohenji

"Nissho ... stole the Lotus Sutra scrolls from the grave and took them to Hamado in Kamakura" -- SGI-USA Study Department Leader Eugene Hirahara

"At any rate, based on the preponderance of the evidence, specifically Nikko's record of the distribution of mementoes; I hereby find Nissho and Nichiro "not guilty", on the charge of robbing Nichiren's grave." -- Posted by rbeck at May 14, 2005 10:34 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Lamont {inadvertantly?} makes it appear "The Distribution of the Mementoes", an apocryphal work, is part of "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku", an authenticated work:
General Conditions after the Death of Nichiren: Translated by H.G. Lamont
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Record of the Passing of the Founder by Nikko Shonin (1246-1333)
Shuso Gosenge Kiroku {Excerpts}: Download file
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
According to Nichiren Shu {click here}: Translation {Eddy Chai}: "In Heisei 4 [1992], November, the Gosenge Kiroku (in the archives of Nishiyama Hommonji) that was written by Nikko, was designated an important national property, and its [contents] made open to the public. Its contents are indeed valuable information with regards to the funeral arrangements of that time, especially the matter concerning rotation duty. It is written in Koan 5 [1282] Oct 16. Towards the end of the document, there is [Nichiren's] Last Will which mentions: "the standing statue of Shakya, is to be set up beside the grave." (end of translation)."
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Rev. Kawabe cites; "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku": Koshi-e February 8th 2004
Myosenji Temple, by Rev. Shoshin Kawabe: Download file
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The Distribution of Mementoes, an apocryphal work,
attributed to Nikko Shonin (1246-1333):
Goibutsu-haibun-cho {Excerpts}: Download file
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hi, Robin - I read the Hirahara material on the SGI board as well. I have been meaning to write a response of my own to Hirahara's piece, but I have just been so damned busy that I. . . well, no excuses.

I don't know what those nasty five priests were supposed to be doing if not taking care of their members. Iknow that ever since the common sense explanation for these disciples'"negligence" in visiting Nichiren's grave was made clear to me (i.e., Minobu is remote, the faith communities were small and vulnerable, and the disciples didn't have trains planes or automobiles to make the trek to Minobu with), thatthe whole myth of the "evil" disciples' betrayals has seemed like a really vicious,self-serving story on the part of Taiseki-ji. If I had been one of those disciples, I hope I would have paid attention to my members instead of making that trip with no one back at home base to care for the flock.

Well, I was glad at least thatHirahara cared enough to make a response. Maybe I'll say something more when I've had more time to digest. best, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at May 13, 2005 04:26 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hey Robin:

There's a great confusion over the content of the Gosenge Kiroku.
Thanks to this article:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bridge/7743/nichijuu1.html

The distribution of momentos is NOT part of the Shuso Gosenge Kiroku. The Kiroku is a true original preserved at Nishiyama, and contain the signatures of Nissho, Nichiro, Nichiji and Niko. The last para of the Kiroku is entitled the "Last Will [of Nichiren]" (Go-yui-gon). This is where it is mentioned that the Shakya statue is to be placed "next" to His grave. The same also with His "collection" of most important writings, namely the "Notes to the Hokkekyo."

The distribution of momentos is actually the "Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho" (御遺物配分帳) kept at Ikegami Hommonji.

御 = go = Honorable
遺物 = ibutsu = momento
配分 = haibun = distribution
帳 = cho = notes

Ikegami also possess the "Minobusan-shuban-cho" (身延山守番帳).

身延山 = Minobusan
守 = shu = guard
番 = ban = rotate
帳 = cho = notes

Both documents concern the arrangements made after the passing of Nichiren Daishounin. They are said to be the writings of Nikko; but are regarded as forgeries. The "Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho" contradicts the much esteemed Kiroku of a sister temple; so you don't hear much of them.

I am puzzled why Lamont chose to write it this way. It certainly caused people to think he is still talking about the Gosenge Kiroku that he mentioned in an earlier sentence.

Buddhist study is full of surprises. It seems, if one stops getting surprises, one is not getting anywhere.

In any case, as I once mentioned, you have to get yourself a copy.
Posted by: eddy at May 17, 2005 08:29 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The Nichiren Buddhism Modern Religious Institute " is related to the Nichiren Shu.

It's Oct 20, 1997 "Nichiren Shu news" says:

平成四年十一月に国の重文に指定された日興筆「聖人御遷化記録」（西山本門寺蔵）が公開された。その内容は実に大切なもので当時の御葬儀や列の次第殊に大事なのはご墓所輪番の事が記されている。弘安五年十月十六日の筆である。文末にご遺言あり「仏者、釈迦立像を墓所の傍に立置事」が書かれている。
http://www.genshu.gr.jp/DPJ/paper/1997/97102002.htm

Translation:
In Heisei 4 [1992], November, the Gosenge Kiroku (in the archives of Nishiyama Hommonji) that was written by Nikko, was designated an important national property, and its [contents] made open to the public. Its contents are indeed valuable information with regards to the funeral arrangements of that time, especially the matter concerning rotation duty. It is written in Koan 5 [1282] Oct 16. Towards the end of the document, there is [Nichiren's] Last Will which mentions: "the standing statue of Shakya, is to be set up beside the grave." (end of translation).

Therefore, it has been established that the Gosenge Kiroku does not contain the momento distribution list.
Posted by: eddy at May 17, 2005 01:20 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
At any rate, based on the preponderance of the evidence, specifically Nikko's record of the distribution of memontos; I hereby find Nissho and Nichiro "not guilty", on the charge of robbing Nichiren's grave.
Posted by rbeck at May 14, 2005 10:34 AM
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
You make your verdict on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Since the charge was criminal, the proper standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt". Do not worry- the "resoanable doubt" standard requires more proof than the "prepondernce" standard. Mr. Hirahara failed to meet his burden even where the standard of proof was easier to meet. As the error is harmless, the verdict on not guilty stands. -- Brian
Posted by: Brian Mc at May 15, 2005 04:19 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Someone suggested that Hirahara's attack on Nissho's character might be intended to weaken current enemies and win back those on the edge.

Note the Daimandara Kempon Hokke uses, and I recommend, were issued to Nissho in 1280. Also, the Prayer Gohonzon widely used by the Tusker Sangha/Indy Movement, was issued to Nissho in 1277.

Here is my problem. Nissho is not as simple to defend as I had thought. The material posted by HG Lamont can be refuted easily. One might say Kempon Hokke's published material is even deceptive, though I doubt it was intentional.

I have nothing to show anyone agreed that Nissho & Nichiro were entitled to take the Scrolls & the Statue.

Nichiren's will, as written in the Authentic Record of Nikko, "Gosenge Kiroku" --Nikko's Record of Nichiren's Demise, dated October 13 1282, with seals of Nissho, Nichiro, & Nichiji, kept at Nishiyama Honmonji states that Nichiren wanted these items left at his grave, at Minobu.

The "Distribution of Momentos" {"Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho", kept at Ikegami}, which Lamont cites, is another document, and might be a forgery.

However, if the Distribution of Momentos is somehow authetic, it indicates Nikko agreed {grudgingly?} for Nissho & Nichiro to take these items. Still, the Autheticated Letter to Hakiri {"Hara Dono Gohenji" by Nikko} does show he was angry about the Statue; he accuses Nichiro of "making off with it".

The good thing is that I doubt many are even following this. It is frighfully convoluted.

But the latest information is good news for Hirahara's case, at least for now. Citing the Distribution of Momentos is not a strong counter to his Response to Ryuei.

This can certainly change; especially if we can rehabilitate the "Distribution of Momentos" as a valid document, as maybe a sort of amendment to the Gosenge Kiroku?

There are other documents that may be useful to defend Nissho. These might include: "Fuji Itseki Mon to Zonchi-no-koto" by Nikko "Ganso kedo-ki" by Nitcho. "Kyoshaku Hisho Yobun" by Nissho, September 28, 1288

I also think we should realize that the situation at Ikegami in Ocober of 1282 was chaotic. Nissho & Nichiro may well have decided that the Scrolls & Statue were unsafe at Minobu. They may have simply taken matters into their own hands.

Finally, this has nothing to do with the claim by Hirahara and others about the Two Transfer Documents and Nikko as sole successor. There is evidence to substantiate Six successors, with Nissho & Nichiro ranked #1 and #2, in the Gosenge Kiroku & other sources. There is nothing to support Nikko being in charge of Minobu, or of the other Senior Disciples.

Therefore, Nissho & Nichiro may well have had good reasons and the authority to take the Scrolls & Statue. We certainly have other examples of Nichiren's Will being over-ruled by contigencies.
Posted by: ryoben at May 19, 2005 08:28 PM
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I am sure that Rev Ryuei and others could find more detail concerning this but the immediate questions I have are these.

1. How do we know that the scrolls mentioned are one and the same? I know that there have been claims made in the past that there are two sets of scrolls with annotation made by Nichiren. I seem to recall both JOhn Ayres and Terry Ruby making comments about this fact some years ago. I have no information one way or another concerning this but if it is true then how do we know that the set at the gravesite is the same set Nikko says was taken away?

2. Even if they are, the area where the orignal tomb is located is very close to the river and is know to be subject to flooding. As a result the actual remains of Nichiren have been moved up the hill to a more protected spot near the Kuon-ji temple. Is it possible that these artifacts were also moved for a similar reason?

3. It is as I understand it form discussions with some priests and reading some of Dr. Stone's writings on the subject that initially Nikko was getting along with the other senior disciples even expressing sympathy concerning the difficulties they were having in the areas where they teaching which prevented them from regularly attending to the tomb. It is only later after they quarrelled that he made a number of claims about people abandoning Nichiren's true intentions. And still later he apparently made up with at least some of the senior disciples which is shown by one of them coming and living with him at Homonji temple. So to what extent is the present ambiquity the result of these differences of opinion which cropped up later after modifications had been agreed to and implemented? To what extent have those differences been exaggerated by the interpretations of later members of competing schools seeking to reinforce their position vis a vis the "competition?

4. It is a documented fact that Nikko acted as secretary for the immediate circle of senior disciples. He often acted as scribe, in effect recording the minutes as it were of their discussions. This was often his function while Nichiren was alive and continued after Nichiren's death. Therefore Mr. Hirahana's claim that his authorship of the letter somehow substantiates a claim that he was the acknowledged leader of the senior disciples is not supportable. First there is actual documentary proof to the contrary. Nichiren did not appoint a single leader of the group but he did make all six senior disciples equally responsible for passing on his teachings. Secondly, the Japanese were [and are] even more status concious than the Americans. The leader of the group of disciples would hardly have been the one acting as the recording secretary.

5. As to the claims of the authenticity of documents cited by Lamont or even as to Lamont's translation of those documents I can not comment one way or another. Lamont is a competent translator, albeit a person who can be difficult to get along with. But I would find it of great amusement that the any SGI scholar would contest the authenticity of the documents he cites given that they hold that all such documents are valid unless conclusively proven otherwise. They can ahrdly do otherwise since much of their doctrine is based upon quotations form documents of questionable authenticity and Dr. Stone discusses in some detail in one of her publication.

6. One final question I have is this. To what extent can we confirm that the actual original documents cited by either side in support of their claim support the translated remarks made by the conflicting sides? The Gohso Zenshu, published by the SGI is full of interlineations made by the editors to support their doctrinal interpretations but those interlineations are not to be found in the original documents. I have seen where Dr. Stone and others have mentioned a letter written by Nikko where someone in the past clearly interlineated some additional kanji. The attempt seemed to them to be the result of a desire to make the letter more accurate. I used to wonder about this and recently purchased a Mandala which dates from the 1700's on which the name of the temple has been carefully erased in the past and another name written in over it. The person I purchased it form informed me that his understanding is that there was decision made to change the name of the temple and thus the scroll had been "corrected" to reflect the new name. Now in our modern sensibility this would be anathema aking to some 1984 scenario but apparently the Japanese in times gone by were not troubled by this in the least. While I am not inferring that this is someting that happened to the documents on question, I am curious to know something more about them and the accuaracy of the translations made from them.
Posted by: John Petry at May 22, 2005 02:06 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"As to the claims of the authenticity of documents cited by Lamont or even as to Lamont's translation of those documents I can not comment one way or another. Lamont is a competent translator, albeit a person who can be difficult to get along with. But I would find it of great amusement that the any SGI scholar would contest the authenticity of the documents he cites given that they hold that all such documents are valid unless conclusively proven otherwise."
`````````````````````````````````````````
Jon, Eddy pointed out that the distribution of memos is not in "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku." I think Eddy would agree that Taisekiji & NSS are wrong on other things. I think with Lamont, it was the wording, not intentional deception. Ryuei might want to amend that at his web site. Maybe Nichiren Shu has a full translation, so we could see some context? Anyway, Eddy does not seem to have a pony in this race; other than to get Honmon Shoshu's side of the story out there.
Posted by: robin at May 23, 2005 01:54 AM

Posted by rbeck at August 30, 2005 03:28 PM