# Gohonzon



## Isidore Demsky

Is this true?



> Gohonzon is a Japanese word: _Go_ means true and _honzon_ translates as object of worship or veneration.



I tried looking "go" up in an online Japanese/English dictionary but couldn't find "true" listed as one of the meanings.

Is "gohonzon" a Japanese word, does it mean "true object of veneration," and is the etymology correct?

Has "go" ever meant true, and does honzon mean object of veneration?


----------



## 810senior

Hello._

go _doesn't mean true. _go _is prefix meaning respect, affection, emphasis on that word.
_honzon _is the object of Buddhism for the worship.


----------



## Isperia

御本尊's "Go"? It is a prefix. We pronounce it "Go" , "O" or "Mi". (It depends on the case.)
It makes a noun polite but it isn't indispensable, so you also can say "本尊".

"御御御付"(O/Mi/O/Tsuke...It means "miso soup") has three prefixes, but all prefixes are the same!


----------



## Isidore Demsky

So this guy here (who claims to have studied Nichiren Daishonin for forty years, having lived "in Japan, working on the* translation *of  Nichiren's writings") really doesn't know what he's talking about (and went off on this tirade about his dislike of the word *"true"* for no reason)? 


> Gohonzon is a Japanese word: *Go means true* and _honzon_  translates as object of worship or veneration. I hate the word true  because it implies that everything else is false. This is the curse of  all religions -- as soon as they start claiming exclusivity on the  truth, there is a backlash or groundswell of resentment from those, much  like myself, who resent being told what is true and what is false. Let  us figure it out for ourselves. Real life is cast in terms of shades of  gray, partial truths and partial falsehoods rather than black and white  absolutes. A valid (as opposed to true) religion should couch its  teachings in terms that take into account the universe and its infinite  variety.
> 
> So the use of the word "true" bothers me, and so does the phrase "object  of worship." "Worship" immediately calls to mind a transcendent and  separate entity. We worship God, we worship spirits and we may even  worship saints and sages who have guided us in our spiritual  development. It is only natural that, in the act of worshipping, we  place something outside of us on a pedestal in order to look up to it.  Even the physical act of worship -- on our knees, eyes looking up to a  force far greater than we -- carries with it the implication of inferior  to superior, and the hope that prayer will be answered from above.
> I asked a dear friend of mine, a tenured professor at one of the top universities in America, if there were any translation for _honzon _other than object of worship. He could only come up with "object of veneration." Same problem.


http://ryojusen.blogspot.com/2005/07/nam-myoho-renge-kyo-personal.html


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Haha, funny!
Apparently he misunderstands something. And you're right having that doubt.

御本尊 go-hon-zon

御 go = the prefix, just showing the speaker's respect to 本尊
本　hon = true
尊　zon = to respect, worship or veneration

Therefore, *"hon means true"* is the correct version.
He just confused which one of those kanjis has the meaning of the "true."
The confusion might ruin the solemn and lofty atmosphere of all his considerations, and might make his translations unreliable.

This kind of thing is called 弘法も筆の誤り (Even a skillful hand-writer such as Kobo may make a mistake when he writes a lot kanji. A very skilled person may make a mistake from time to time). A simple and careless error doesn't necessarily deny the awesome skill or knowledge of his. I respect him.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> Haha, funny!
> Apparently he misunderstands something. And you're right having that doubt.
> 
> 御本尊 go-hon-zon
> 
> 御 go = the prefix, just showing the speaker's respect to 本尊
> 本　hon = true
> 尊　zon = to respect, worship or veneration
> 
> Therefore, *"hon means true"* is the correct version.
> He just confused which one of those kanjis has the meaning of the "true."
> The confusion might ruin the solemn and lofty atmosphere of all his considerations, and might make his translations unreliable.
> 
> This kind of thing is called 弘法も筆の誤り (Even a skillful hand-writer such as Kobo may make a mistake when he writes a lot kanji. A very skilled person may make a mistake from time to time). A simple and careless error doesn't necessarily deny the awesome skill or knowledge of his. I respect him.



Thank you.

But what do you think of this reply I just received from the author?



> The blog was written some       years ago *and I stand by what I have to say in it*, however you       need to understand that it is purely subjective. * I was taught, 47       years ago, that Go meant true* and, in that I consider the Gohonzon       a truly universal and efficacious object of worship, I probably       wrote that to imply the truth of its efficacy.  However, you are       absolutely correct that Go is an honorific (similar to Dai (great)       as used in the Daishonin or the Dai-Gohonzon).  *Please understand       that in Japanese to English translation, there is a lot of wiggle       room*, and don't hang yourself up too much on precision.  *For all       the Japanese people who taught me that Go meant true and for       myself in the early days, I don't think you can say that Go       doesn't mean true.*  As I said, it is true in that it works, but it       is not true in that all others are therefore false.  Different       things work for different people, though I strongly believe that       the Gohonzon will work for everyone who utilizes it.  These days I       refer to it as the ultimate focal point for meditation in       perceiving the reality of your own life -- a translation from a       speech given my Nikken Shonin on the Kanjin no Honzon Sho (On the       Object of Worship).  *So I was not mistaken... the problem is both       the interpretation and the imprecision of Japanese to English       translation.*  Again, I believe it to be true in terms of its       universal efficacy; I do not believe it to be true in the       implication that everything else is false.  I hope this explains a       bit about how I think and what I wrote.  Thanks for writing..



I speak even less Japanese than I do Spanish (and I only "hablo _español_ un pocco"), so I'm in no way qualified to judge the truth or falsehood of what he's saying here.

What do those of you who speak Japanese as your native (or second) language think of it?


----------



## Isidore Demsky

In this email, the author seems to be saying that "true" is within the semantic range of "go."

Is he entirely wrong?


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Does でござります mean "it is true"?


----------



## 810senior

Isidore Demsky said:


> In this email, the author seems to be saying that "true" is within the semantic range of "go."
> 
> Is he entirely wrong?




As far as I know, there is no such a meaning as in _true_. the Chinese character 御 which can be read as _gyo, go, o_(how it is read is case by case) means "Indicating the Emperor's thing" and even "the respect, courtesy (for something)" I can show some example used: (御衣_gyoi_: Emperor's cloth, 御物_gyobutu_: Emperor's belongings; お名前_oname_: name[more respectful], ご家族_gokazoku_: family[more respectful]).

I'm not sure why he thought _go _means(or contain the similar meaning)true. The Chinese characters meaning true are generally 真, 本, 誠 etc.
And just in my opinion, I haven't thought _gohonzon _is the most special or courteous thing. the object is just worshiped in Buddhism, as far as I know. (there is no more than the attribute)
So I can't understand somehow what he was furious with


----------



## 810senior

Isidore Demsky said:


> Does でござります mean "it is true"?



No. it's equivalent to です. but it's more formal and rigid. lit.That's ~, it is ~ (degozaru=to be[formal], masu=auxiliary verb meaning courtesy)


----------



## Isidore Demsky

810senior said:


> No. it's equivalent to です. but it's more  formal and rigid. lit.That's ~, it is ~ (degozaru=to be[formal],  masu=auxiliary verb meaning courtesy)



So it basically means "that's it," or "it is"?

Given the principle of dynamic equivalence, doesn't that amount to "it's true"?

And can't *ゴ* (go) mean to perceive, or understand (some truth)?*



*


----------



## 810senior

Isidore Demsky said:


> So it basically means "that's it," or "it is"?
> 
> Given the principle of dynamic equivalence, doesn't that amount to "it's true"?
> 
> And can't *ゴ*(go) mean to perceive, or understand (some truth)?*
> 
> 
> 
> *



Yes, it basically means that. There is no element in reference to _true or truth_. (So I don't understand why he thought that way...)


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Isidore Demsky said:


> Thank you.
> 
> But what do you think of this reply I just received from the author?
> 
> 
> 
> I speak even less Japanese than I do Spanish (and I only "hablo _español_ un pocco"), so I'm in no way qualified to judge the truth or falsehood of what he's saying here.
> 
> What do those of you who speak Japanese as your native (or second) language think of it?



I just think that the author has been misunderstanding for 47 years.
Again, *the kanji that means true must be hon(本）, not go　(御）, of go-hon-zon 御本尊.*
He confused it 47 years ago, or his memory got confused during these 47 years, I think.
Or the Japanese guy who taught all those information to him just confused to tell him 47 years ago by mistake.
I don't think it's a big thing, just a simple and tiny misunderstanding.

御本尊 is a doll (or a book or a roll of paper or something) and the kanji means that the doll/book/paper is the only real one, in which the god really exists.
If we believe that, then we have to think that other dolls/books/paper are all fakes, in which the god doesn't exist.
Therefore, I think the author's discussion about 御本尊 makes sense, except the misunderstanding of which kanji meaning the "true." 

*御本尊 has the meaning of "true" in it.  **But in "Hon (本）, not go (御）”**
That's all.*


----------



## John_Doe

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> Haha, funny!
> 御本尊 go-hon-zon
> 
> 御 go = the prefix, just showing the speaker's respect to 本尊
> 本　hon = true
> 尊　zon = to respect, worship or veneration



Doesn't 本 mean "main", "principal" here? As I see from the definition (信仰・礼拝の中心として寺院の本堂などに安置される仏・菩薩像。), "main" suits more.


----------



## 810senior

Your interpretation might be right. 本 contains the meaning such as main, origin, root.
But I can't say that is correct because I don't know what etymology 本尊 has...

Sometimes, we use this word _honzon _as the *main *character in question, the *said *person. (I found this meaning in the dictionary but I rarely heard of that...)


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

本尊
=本当に尊ぶべき仏像（巻物/木版） (<--- My personal interpretation)
＝本物の、尊ぶべき仏像（巻物/木版） (<--- My personal interpretation)

One thing for sure is that 本 doesn't mean "a book." 　(This is a joke.)
In this context, as an ordinary native Japanese, I think 本 means something you can see in the 熟語:　本当 or 本物　(real, true). 
I didn't think 本 means "main" or "principle"　in this context.
I don't think that now either, although  本分, 手本 do mean "main" or "principle."

When it comes to technical jargon of Buddhism, I know next to nothing about it.
Therefore, maybe I'm wrong. 
The only thing I want to say is 本 is much closer to the meaning, "true," than 御. 
That's all.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> 本尊
> =本当に尊ぶべき仏像（巻物/木版） (<--- My personal interpretation)
> ＝本物の、尊ぶべき仏像（巻物/木版） (<--- My personal interpretation)
> 
> One thing for sure is that 本 doesn't mean "a book." 　(This is a joke.)
> In this context, as an ordinary native Japanese, I think 本 means something you can see in the 熟語:　本当 or 本物　(real, true).
> I didn't think 本 means "main" or "principle"　in this context.
> I don't think that now either, although  本分, 手本 do mean "main" or "principle."
> 
> When it comes to technical jargon of Buddhism, I know next to nothing about it.
> Therefore, maybe I'm wrong.
> The only thing I want to say is 本 is much closer to the meaning, "true," than 御.
> That's all.



But can go (御) ever mean "real" or "true" in any context?

The ideas of being worthy of respect, and being "true" seem close enough to possibly overlap, and I'd like to know if the idea of being "real" or "true" is within the semantic range of go (御)?


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

No.
Your persistent and diligent question made me check in dictionaries, but I failed to find out the meaning you're requested.

The only thing I can say is:
if the both of "go" and "real/true" have the same meaning/connotation, they both have the "positive" connotation. 
However, it is based on a premises that all the words exist in the world can be divided into two groups, having 'positive' connotation and having 'negative' one. 

If I were you, I would just ignore what the writer said about it, because everybody can make a careless mistake, and it is a waste of time to think about it any further. Therefore, this would be my last comment about it. Maybe other members would find out the you-want-to-know meaning of "go" for you. I wish your success to get such an answer. 

(Anyway, if the writer was talking about a special, technical jargon regarding that religion, it's beyond the scope of* Japanese language forum*, I think.)


----------



## Flaminius

本尊 in the general Buddhist parlance is the sculpture(s) or image(s) that is/are the main object(s) of worship in a building.  A Buddhist temple may consist of more than one building, and each building has main object(s) of worship.  こういうのは、語の構成をいくら眺めてもわからないです。最低限、仏教徒がどのように使用しているのか調べる必要があります。

御, as pronounced _go_, indicates your attitude to the modified noun, or to the owner thereof.  It is that of veneration or respect.  The native speakers of Japanese generallly do not use it for being true.  Granted that a lot of schools of thought here are fond of make-shift etymologising in order to make one or two philosophical points, but I am more inclined to think that the blogger has been misinformed for the last few decades.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Flaminius said:


> 御, as pronounced _go_, indicates your  attitude to the modified noun, or to the owner thereof.  It is that of  veneration or respect.  The native speakers of Japanese generallly do  not use it for being true.



Thank you.


----------

