Soka Spirit
SGI's Conferral of the Gohonzon

Volume 3, No. 5 (Part 3) –
November 08, 1993


NST Allegation #9

{Gohonzon issued by the SGI are counterfeit because} they have not received the legitimate ‘Opening of the eyes’ ceremony. Authority over ‘Opening of the Eyes’ of the Gohonzon rests with the High Priest.

These allegations by the Soka Gakkai are in direct conflict with the words of Nichiren Daishonin, who clearly recognized the ‘Opening of the Eyes’ of an object of worship through the Lotus Sutra. The Daishonin states:

The offering of the ‘Opening of the Eyes’ for wooden or painted images can be performed using the Lotus Sutra only. (‘Honzon Mondo Sho,’ [English:] ‘Questions and Answers on the Object of Worship,’ Gosho Zenshu, p. 366)

Additionally, he writes:

It is the power of the Lotus Sutra which makes it possible to infuse such wooden or painted images with the ‘life’ or spiritual properties [of the Buddha]. (Shijo Kingo Shakabutsu Kuyo)

The Soka Gakkai is stating: ‘If one prays with faith, this is tantamount to having performed the Opening of the Eyes Ceremony for an object of worship.’ Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion would mean that as long as one prays with faith to any object – even the object of worship of a heretical sect – one would have performed the ‘Opening of the Eyes’ and would thereby be able to activate the powers of the Buddha and the Law. Where in Nichiren Daishonin’s Gosho is there such a teaching? The Soka Gakkai ought to present clear and detailed documentary evidence on this matter.

The 31st High Priest Nichiin Shonin explained the source of the Opening of the Eyes Ceremony in Nichiren Shoshu by stating:

Although a wooden or painted image originates from plants and trees, the ‘Opening of the Eyes’ to infuse it with the supreme enlightenment of the actual living Buddha is performed by the ultimate transmitted secret principle of the most important matter [of the Gohonzon}. This Transmission has been passed down for thirty-one generations, from Nichiren Shonin through Nichiin.

He clearly indicated that the ‘Opening of the Eyes’ is something that is performed according to the authority of the High Priest (NST News, Special Issue, pp. 16-17).

Rebuttal of Allegation #9

(i) The significance of ‘eye-opening’ lies in opening the ‘eyes of the Buddha’ within us – in other words, in recognizing and revealing the Buddha’s life from within. To this end, the Daishonin stresses faith in the Lotus Sutra, that is, the Gohonzon. The priesthood insists that the high priest must perform an eye-opening ceremony over the Gohonzon to empower it, and even over our prayer beads if we are to derive any benefit from using them. However, the eye-opening ceremony is nothing more than a formality passed down from provisional forms of Buddhism that has nothing to do with the original spirit of Buddhism.

In the above quotes from the Daishonin, he refers to the eye-opening ceremony applied to wooden and painted images. This indicates Buddhist statues and the like. He is not talking about the Gohonzon in these passages and nowhere in his writings spoke of an eye-opening ceremony being necessary to empower the Gohonzon. Most people in the Daishonin’s day believed that such ceremonies gave power to statues of Shakyamuni Buddha and other Buddhist objects. In actuality, it had already become a popular source of income for priests, who collected offerings for performing such ceremonies.

In the passage from the Gosho ‘Shijo Kingo Shakubutsu Kuyo’ (‘Consecrating an Image of Shakyamuni Buddha Made by Shijo Kingo,’ MW-6, 161) quoted by NST above, the Daishonin is encouraging Shijo Kingo, who has just offered him a statue of Shakyamuni Buddha. By saying that the eye-opening ceremony must be based on the Lotus Sutra, the Daishonin is debunking the idea that formal eye-opening ceremonies by priests are necessary and stresses one’s faith in the Lotus Sutra, in other words, faith in the Gohonzon, to summoning forth the state of Buddhahood.

In another Gosho the Daishonin writes: 

Once we chant Myoho-renge-kyo, with just a single sound we summon forth and manifest the Buddha nature of all Buddhas; all dharmas; all bodhisattvas; all shomon disciples; all the deities such a Bonten, Taishaku, King Emma; the sun, the moon the myriad stars, the heavenly gods and earthly deities, on down to hell-dwellers, hungry spirits, beasts, asuras, humans, gods and other living beings. This blessing is immeasurable and boundless.

When we revere Myoho-renge-kyo inherent in our own life as the object of worship, the Buddha nature within us is summoned forth and manifested by our chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo; this is what is meant by ‘Buddha.’ (MW-6, 207)

All of the phenomena the Daishonin mentions above are not ‘objects of worship.’ Yet from his words we can see that our ichinen to call forth our own Buddhahood by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to the Gohonzon simultaneously summons the protective functions of Buddhahood in our environment.

If the high priest alone can perform an ‘opening of the eyes’ ceremony to empower the Gohonzon, then what does this ceremony consist of? What secret is the high priest privy to that we, as ordinary believers, are not?

In a manual of formalities performed by Nichiren Shoshu priests called ‘Essentials for Priests,’ the procedure for conducting eye-opening ceremonies for prayer beads and other objects is described as follows: ‘Praying with Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.’ In other words, the ‘opening of the eyes ceremony’ consists of chanting daimoku with faith.

Is the daimoku chanted by a priest somehow more powerful than that which we chant, so that a priest’s daimoku, and not ours, is effective of ‘opening the eyes’ of inanimate objects? In the Gosho, the Daishonin addresses the following question from a believer:

How great is the difference between the blessings received when a sage chants daimoku and the blessings received when we chant it?

To which the Daishonin responds:

To reply, one is in no way superior to the other. The gold that a fool possesses is no different from the gold that a wise man possesses; a fire made by a fool is the same as a fire made by a wise man.

However, there is a difference if one chants the daimoku while acting against the intent of this sutra. (MW-3, 207)

Nowhere in the Gosho does Nichiren Daishonin indicate that a priest must perform an eye-opening ceremony in order to empower the Gohonzon, prayer beads, or anything else. He resolutely declares that our chanting daimoku with faith enables us to call forth the Buddha nature not only from ourselves but from all phenomena. He further indicates that when it comes to the power of one’s prayer while chanting daimoku, all people are equal, so long as they do not act against the intent of the sutra.

If we dare to briefly summarize the intent of the Lotus Sutra, is it not to enable all people, regardless of wealth, rank or status, to attain enlightenment equally? If this is the case, then so long as a priest acts in accord with the sutra’s intent, his daimoku is no different than that of an ordinary lay believer of sincere faith and practice. There is no reason to conclude, then, that the daimoku of ordinary believers is any less powerful in ‘opening the eyes’ of the Gohonzon than that of a priest; In fact, it would be more important, since we are the ones who chant to our Gohonzon on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, in trying to assert the supremacy of priests over laity; in attempting to destroy the Soka Gakkai; in excommunicating some 10 million believers, and through a long list of other serious transgressions, Nikken has acted against the intent of the Lotus Sutra perhaps more gravely than any one person since the Daishonin’s time, or perhaps in the entire history of Buddhism. What meaning could there be for such a person to performing an ‘eye-opening ceremony’ even if it were mandatory?

The only way to ‘activate’ the great beneficial power of the Gohonzon is through our strong faith. To those who have no faith, the Gohonzon is merely a paper scroll. To those who chant daimoku with sincere faith, however, the Gohonzon manifests itself as the embodiment of the Daishonin’s life in accordance with the principle of the enlightenment of plants and trees.

In this regard, the Daishonin states:

It is the power of the Lotus Sutra that makes it possible to infuse such paintings and statues with a ‘soul’ or spiritual property. This was the realization of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai. In the case of living beings, this doctrine is known as attaining Buddhahood in one’s present form; in the case of painted and wooden images, it is known as the enlightenment of plants and trees. (MW-6, 162)

(ii) Immediately prior to the passage quoted by NST from the Gosho ‘Questions and Answers on the Object of Worship,’ the Daishonin states: ‘Nichiren, too, as did the Buddha and T’ien-t’ai, makes the Lotus Sutra the object of worship. This is because the Lotus Sutra is the father and mother of Shakyamuni and it is the eyes of all Buddhas.Ÿ The Buddha is that which is born, the Lotus Sutra is that which gives birth; the Buddha is the body, the Lotus Sutra is the soul’ (Gosho Zenshu, p. 366).

We can read ‘the Lotus Sutra’ in this passage to mean the Gohonzon of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The Gohonzon itself is the ‘eye of all Buddhas’ and our faith in it allows us to ‘open the eyes’ of our Buddha wisdom. We need no intermediary to do this for us.

(iii) The Daishonin states: ‘Now, in the Latter Day of the Law, the ‘eye’ is the great mandala that was never before revealed [during the Former or Middle Day]. There is no ‘eye’ apart from this Gohonzon’ (Gosho Zenshu, p. 841). The Gohonzon of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, in other words, is itself the eye of the Buddha. A special ceremony, therefore, is not necessary to validate or empower the Gohonzon.

(iv) The SGI never stated nor implied that believers can pray ‘with faith to any object – even the object of worship of a heretical sect’ and still ‘activate the powers of the Buddha and the Law.’ When we pray to the Gohonzon with faith, we can tap the powers of the Buddha and the Law embodied in the Gohonzon as the Daishonin indicates when he says, ‘The Gohonzon is found in faith alone’ (MW-1, 213).

The Soka Gakkai has always maintained a strict attitude of faith and respect toward the Gohonzon both in spirit and in practice. It is the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood that has, on many occasions, been lax in this area. Their acceptance of a Shinto talisman for worship by believers during the war is one example of this. In addition, enshrinement of Gohonzon together with erroneous Buddhist and non-Buddhist objects of worship has been quite common among Hokkeko families who have had a close relationship with Taiseki-ji and other Nichiren Shoshu temples for many generations. Nichiren Shoshu priests have made no attempts to correct these practices among their parishioners. The priesthood’s contention that the SGI is promoting faith in erroneous objects of worship is a purely wild fantasy.

(v) Nichiin Shonin’s statement simply indicates that the Gohonzon of actual ichinen sanzen, which actualizes the principle of the enlightenment of trees and plants, had been passed down at Taiseki-ji. ‘The ultimate transmitted secret principle of the most important matter’ is none other than the Gohonzon itself. It provides no basis for the assertion that the high priest must perform an eye-opening ceremony on the Gohonzon.

NST Allegation # 10

{Gohonzon issued by the SGI are counterfeit because} they are not issued by the head temple. No benefit can result from a counterfeit object of worship.

The important point here is that in Nichiren Shoshu, the High Priest, who alone inherits the lineage of the true Law, is fundamentally endowed with complete authority on matters concerning the Gohonzon. Any issuance of the Gohonzon must be approved by the High Priest of the time.

This issuance of counterfeit objects of worship by the Soka Gakkai has not been sanctioned by the High Priest, nor have these counterfeit objects of worship undergone the Opening of the Eyes Ceremony at the Head Temple. They are nothing more than fake objects of worship that resemble the legitimate Gohonzon of the Heritage of the Law.

It is absolutely impossible that such an object of worship – an imitation in form only without any substance (i.e. lacking the Heritage of the Law) – can bring about any benefits. Moreover, a person who worships such an object will inevitably create the cause to fall into the hell of incessant suffering (NST News, Special Issue, pp. 17-18).

Rebuttal of Allegation #10

(i) As stated before, in the past, many Nichiren Shoshu branch temples reproduced Gohonzon transcribed by different high priests and issued them to their parishioners on their own accord, without the high priest’s permission or eye-opening ceremony performed by him. (Please see ‘Historical Perspective on the Transcription of the Gohonzon’ p. 2.) In any case, the SGI has long been calling for Nikken’s resignation from the office of high priest since he has consistently and blatantly betrayed the trust and responsibility associated with that office. A petition signed by 16 million people calling for his resignation was submitted to the head temple and utterly ignored without so much as a response. The members of the SGI do not wish to wait for Nikken’s permission to practice their faith as they have a right to do.

Most of the assertions by NST above have already been addressed in this document. We might reflect, however, on the promise of our damnation to the hell of incessant suffering at the end of the NST’s statement above. Is this motivated by a sincere desire to save us? Or is it intended to threaten and frighten us?

If the priesthood under Nikken is so concerned that we avoid the torments of hell by praying to a Gohonzon they authorize as valid, then why did they refuse to confer Gohonzon to Soka Gakkai members? If they wish to make the point that Nikken’s Gohonzon is so important to our salvation, then what was their motivation in denying it to us? Are we to believe that it was compassion as they claim?

In their accusations, threats and actions, they reveal themselves to be no different than religious despots throughout the ages who have threatened, terrorized and even brutalized innocent, ordinary people with their authority.

Nichiren Daishonin fought boldly and tenaciously, risking his life to challenge the arrogance of religious authority. We of the SGI will pray to summon the same kind of courage, so that we may continue his struggle today.


Over the years, the priesthood has taught lay believers that only the successive high priests can transcribe and issue the Gohonzon because they alone have received ‘the heritage of the Law’ from Nichiren Daishonin. Until relatively recently, the SGI has supported this idea exactly as it was explained.

A close examination of Nichiren Shoshu history, however, reveals that others besides the successive high priests have transcribed the Gohonzon and made it available for lay believers. This historical fact runs counter to the priesthood’s current assertion that only the person holding the position of high priest is qualified to transcribe and issue the Gohonzon.

[In response to the SGI’s decision to issue the Gohonzon, the Nichiren Shoshu Bureau of Religious Affairs issued a statement dated Sept. 7 that reads in part: ‘In Nichiren Shoshu, all Gohonzons have always been transcribed by the successive High Priests, to whom the heritage of the Buddhist Law has been transmitted. All Gohonzons have been endowed with the spiritual properties of the Buddha by the High PriestŸ.’]

In ‘On the Formalities of True Buddhism,’ Nichiu Shonin (1402-1482), the ninth high priest, states:

Those at branch temples who have disciples and lay patrons may transcribe the mamori* [Gohonzon]. However, they should not place their seals on it.Ÿ Those at branch temples who have disciples and lay patrons may transcribe the mandala [i.e., the Gohonzon] yet may not place their seals on it (Essential Writings of the Fuji School, vol. 1, p. 71).

In the past, as Nichiu Shonin states here, chief priests of branch temples transcribed and issued Gohonzon to believers. Because some branch temples were located far from the head temple and transportation was primitive, it seems that chief priests in distant areas were permitted to transcribe the Gohonzon. Records also show that chief priests of branch temples near the head temple transcribed the Gohonzon as well.

There is also a much more recent example of others besides high priests reproducing the Gohonzon. Myohon-ji temple in Hota, Chiba Prefecture, is an old, prestigious temple established in 1335 by Nichigo, a disciple of Nichimoku Shonin. At this temple is kept the man’nen kugo Gohonzon, which Nichiren Daishonin inscribed in December 1274. (Man’nen kugo means ‘that which protects and saves [all living beings] for all eternity.’)

Myohon-ji seceded from the Minobu sect and joined Nichiren Shoshu in 1957. (The reversion of Myohon-ji to Nichiren Shoshu is detailed in The Human Revolution. See the February 1993 Seikyo Times.) This temple has reproduced the man’nen kugo Gohonzon both before and after it joined with Nichiren Shoshu. Its chief priest, Nichio Kamakura, is now one of the senior executive priests in the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood.

The priesthood currently asserts that authority regarding the Gohonzon rests solely with the high priest. It alleges that only the high priest can reproduce the Gohonzon for believers, because he alone can perform the ‘eye-opening’ ceremony and thereby inject into the Gohonzon the ‘living essence’ of the Daishonin’s enlightened life that only he possesses.

However, not only is there no passage in the Gosho to support such esoteric rituals; the fact that chief priests at branch temples have transcribed the Gohonzon also completely contradicts this reasoning. These chief priests did not possess, by the priesthood’s definition, ‘the heritage of the Law’ and thus the Daishonin’s ‘living essence.’ Therefore, according to the priesthood’s own history, ‘the heritage of the Law that only the successive high priests inherit’ is not an absolutely necessary condition for the reproduction of the Gohonzon.

Simply put, the successive high priests traditionally have been entrusted with the role of reproducing and issuing the Gohonzon for believers so that they can assist in the accomplishment of the Daishonin’s mandate – kosen-rufu. Their transcription of the Gohonzon in no way indicates that they possess any special spiritual state that the rest of us do not. It is simply a part of their managerial responsibility as high priest to support believers and advance kosen-rufu.

After Nichiren Daishonin died, only Nikko Shonin among the six senior priests understood the importance of the Gohonzon as the true object of worship. Other senior priests in the Daishonin’s order failed to recognize the Gohonzon as the object of worship and treated it disrespectfully.

For example, they would place Gohonzon behind statues of Shakyamuni or hang them casually in a corridor of a temple. They even sold Gohonzon for profit or buried them with dead bodies. Furthermore, they reproduced Gohonzon using woodblock techniques and distributed them among those who neither had solid faith nor any appreciation for the Gohonzon (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1606).

Under these circumstances, Nikko Shonin was compelled to discourage the reproduction of Gohonzon via woodblock printing. And he transcribed the Gohonzon by hand only for those who displayed strong faith (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1606 / Detailed Accounts of Nikko Shonin by Nichiko Hori, vol. 2, p. 227).

Nikko Shonin’s desire, however, was to make the Gohonzon as available as possible for those with seeking minds. He continued to transcribe the Gohonzon until the last moment of his life. A Gohonzon exists that Nikko Shonin transcribed shortly before his passing. The weak brush strokes attest to his waning physical strength.

According to Nichiko Shonin, the 59th high priest and renowned Buddhist scholar, during the time of Nichiei Shonin (1352-1419), the eighth high priest, the head temple began using woodblock printing to reproduce the Gohonzon (Essential Writings of the Fuji School, vol. 1, p. 113).

As mentioned before, during Nichiu Shonin’s time, chief priests of branch temples were allowed to transcribe the Gohonzon. However, they were not allowed to place on them their own handwritten seals. The placement of a handwritten seal indicated that the transcriber of the Gohonzon was officially acknowledged. If any priest could officially transcribe the Gohonzon, it was likely to create confusion as the kind caused by the five senior priests during Nikko Shonin’s time. To avoid such confusion, Nichiu Shonin adopted strict restrictions regarding the placement of transcribers’ handwritten seals.

In other words, the use of wood blocks, the transcription of the Gohonzon by chief priests of branch temples, and the restrictions on the placement of transcribers’ handwritten seals were all adopted to make the Gohonzon more readily available for believers while maintaining strict control of the Gohonzon’s reproduction, thus avoiding confusion or disrespect toward the Gohonzon.

Commenting on Nichiu Shonin’s ‘On the Formalities of True Buddhism,’ Nichiko Shonin states:

When this school’s fortune gradually increases and people of different races overseas begin to invoke the Mystic Law, how can the high priest alone possibly manage the bestowal of the mandala? The situation might resurrect these articles [from ‘On the Formalities of True Buddhism’ on the transcription of the Gohonzon by chief priests of branch temples]. Or should we use woodblock printing as a supplement? (Essential Writings of the Fuji School, vol. 1, p. 113)

As Nichiko Shonin states, if the transcription or reproduction of the Gohonzon is done manually only by the high priest, the more kosen-rufu progresses, the less access believers will have to the Gohonzon. Therefore, Nichiko Shonin suggests that the method of reproducing the Gohonzon must be reconsidered so as to accord with the unfolding of kosen-rufu.

In fact, since the time of Nikko Shonin, the method of reproducing the Gohonzon has changed according to societal conditions, such as advancements in transportation, communication and printing technology – and, more importantly – the conditions and progress of the kosen-rufu movement.

It was not until recently that the high priest became the sole authority in the reproduction and issuance of the Gohonzon. During the tenure of Nittatsu Shonin, the 66th high priest (1959-1979), all branch temples began issuing replicas of the same Gohonzon transcribed by the high priest of the time. Until then, some branch temples issued Gohonzon transcribed by previous high priests.

In the process of reproducing and issuing the Gohonzon, however, it is important to always maintain a delicate balance between maximizing the availability of the Gohonzon for those with strong faith and seeking minds, and minimizing the danger of confusion and disrespect toward this precious object of worship, as Nikko Shonin instructed. The reproduction and issuance of the Gohonzon must be handled strictly by the body of believers dedicated to kosen-rufu, based on the teachings of the Daishonin and Nikko Shonin.

Regarding the Gohonzon, the Daishonin states:

Now, over two hundred years have passed since the beginning of the Latter Day of the Law. How awesome that Nichiren was the first to inscribe this great mandala as the banner of propagation of the Lotus Sutra, when even such great masters as Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo were unable to do so! (The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. 1, pp. 211-12)

The Daishonin describes the Gohonzon as ‘the banner of propagation of the Lotus Sutra’; so responsibility for the Gohonzon should naturally rest with those of Nichiren Daishonin’s order who wholeheartedly promote kosen-rufu. Now that Nikken is using the Gohonzon as ‘a banner of authoritarianism,’ a tool to manipulate believers, the SGI’s decision to make the Gohonzon available for members is particularly welcome and valid in light of the Daishonin’s teachings.


[1920s – early 1950s]
ä Gohonzon were issued mainly by branch temples in Tokyo. Each branch temple on its own accord reproduced Gohonzon after one transcribed by a high priest with whom it had close relationship in the past and conferred them upon believers. For example, Myoko-ji reproduced and issued a Gohonzon transcribed by Nippu Shonin, the 55th high priest; Hodo-in, a Gohonzon transcribed by Nichio Shonin, the 56th high priest; and Jozai-ji, a Gohonzon transcribed by Nissho Shonin, the 57th high priest.
ä Branch temples outside the Tokyo area received okatagi Gohonzon (i.e., Gohonzon reproduced through a printing process) from large branch temples in Tokyo and issued them to believers. Some branch temples issued unmounted okatagi Gohonzon to believers. In these cases, believers had to bring Gohonzon to a professional mounter to have them mounted on a scroll for enshrinement.

[Mid-1950s – 1960]
ä Since the mid-1950s, branch temples started to issue okatagi Gohonzon based on one transcribed by Nichikan Shonin, the 26th high priest. During the tenure of Nichijun Shonin (1956-1959), the 65th high priest, most newly issued Gohonzon were the replicas of Nichikan Shonin’s okatagi Gohonzon.
ä Nichikan Shonin’s okatagi Gohonzon were printed at Hodo-in in Tokyo. Branch temples that had business with mounters purchased unmounted okatagi Gohonzon from Hodo-in and had them mounted by their affiliated mounters. Branch temples without mounters had okatagi Gohonzon mounted at Hodo-in.

[Early to mid-1960s]
ä Nichikan Shonin’s okatagi Gohonzon were printed at Hodo-in and mounted at its affiliated mounter. The mounted okatagi Gohonzon were then delivered to branch temples.
[1966 – 1979] ä Since 1966, Nittatsu Shonin’s okatagi Gohonzon were printed at Hodo-in and mounted by its affiliated mounter. Then they were delivered directly from Hodo-in to each branch temple.
ä Around 1973, Myohon-ji temple in Chiba Prefecture reproduced its man’nen kugo Gohonzon, which was inscribed by the Daishonin, in a reduced size and conferred them upon believers without Nittatsu Shonin’s permission.

[1979 – present]
ä Since Nikken became high priest in 1979, a section was created within the Administrative Office at Taiseki-ji to administer the reproduction and distribution of Gohonzon.
ä Nikken’s okatagi Gohonzon are printed at a printing company in Fujinomiya City near Taiseki-ji. They are brought back to Taiseki-ji where the printing quality is inspected and are then mounted at one of several mounters. After an inspection of the mounting quality, they are delivered from the Administrative Office to each branch temple that ordered them.
ä It is clear from these facts that high priests have not performed ‘eye-opening’ ceremonies upon all okatagi Gohonzon. According to the testimony of priests who have served at Taiseki-ji, Nikken rarely performs an eye-opening ceremony over okatagi Gohonzon destined for conferral upon believers. On the rare occasions that he has, he has instructed acolytes to bring only a few of the many boxes of Gohonzon allocated for shipment to be placed on the altar before the recitation of ushitora gongyo at the Grand Reception Hall. Outside of gongyo, no special ceremony is ever performed. If the priesthood, therefore, insists that Gohonzon not authorized by the high priest, not issued by the head temple or those not receiving the eye-opening ceremony are counterfeit, it would have to admit that it has been deceiving believers by distributing counterfeit objects of worship for centuries.

Suggested readings:

1. ‘On the Transmission of the Heritage of the Law’ by Masahiro Kobayashi, Seikyo Times, December 1992.
2. ‘Refuting High Priest Nikken’s Distorted Views on the Heritage of the Law and the High Sanctuary’ by the Association for the Reformation of Nichiren Shoshu, Seikyo Times, February 1993.
3. ‘Eye-opening ceremonies by Slanderous Priests Are Meaningless’ by Daisaku Ikeda, Seikyo Times, February 1993.