True Buddha...has / had infused...

[Tan Elaine]

True Buddha Nichiren Daishonin had / has infused His life into the Gohonzon. (The Gohonzon is the object of worship in Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism. Its followers believe that the Gohonzon has the life of Nichiren Daishonin's (the founder) life in it because, like Jesus, although He is no more in this world He is believed to be omnipresent.

My question is which boldfaced verb should I use? I think it should be 'has' because it remains a fact that His life has been infused into the Gohonzon. (the object of worship).

I would appreciate it very much if somebody could answer this question of mine.

[Rover_KE]

You are right.

Let's simplify:

'Elaine has bought a hat.' That's a simple statement of fact, and she still has it. Nothing more needs to be said.

Rover

[Tan Elaine]

You are right.

Let's simplify:

'Elaine has bought a hat.' That's a simple statement of fact, and she still has it. Nothing more needs to be said.

Rover

Thanks,Rover, Am I right to conclude, from your example, that 'has' is the correct verb because Nichiren Daishonin, although He has passed away, is omnipresent? If he were not omnipresent as in the case of any human being who has passed away, then 'had' would have to be used.

[Rover_KE]

Sorry, I can't confirm that as I don't understand it.

[Tan Elaine]

Sorry, Rover, for the unclear explanation.

In the sentence of my first post on this topic, the following is the sentence and 'has' is the correct choice of verb.

True Buddha Nichiren Daishonin has infused His life into the Gohonzon. (The Gohonzon is the object of worship in Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism. Its followers believe that the Gohonzon has the life of Nichiren Daishonin's (the founder) life in it because, like Jesus, although He is no more in this world He is believed to be omnipresent.

The following is the sentence you provided:

'Elaine has bought a hat.' That's a simple statement of fact, and she still has it. Nothing more needs to be said.

Presuming Elaine died later, the sentence would have to be changed to:

Elaine had bought a hat.

In the case of Nichiren Daishonin above, he is immortal as explained above. My question is, is why we have to use 'has', not 'had', although he is no longer in this world. However, Elaine is not immortal. So if she has left this world 'had' has to be used in the sentence you provided.

I hope my explanation is clearer now.

Thanks.

[konungursvia]

Why not Nichiren infused, without "has"? HK English tends to overuse the auxiliary verb.

[Tan Elaine]

Why not Nichiren infused, without "has"? HK English tends to overuse the auxiliary verb.

Thanks, Konungursvia.

Can I conclude from your reply that 'infused' should be used in my sentence? Thus the sentence should read as follows:

True Buddha Nichiren Daishonin infused His life into the Gohonzon.

The fact that He is immortal and omnipresent has no relevance to the choice of the verb. Hence, 'has infused' cannot be used.

[Tan Elaine]

Could somebody please help? I am still wondering which verb is the correct one?

Many thanks.

[konungursvia]

Thanks, Konungursvia.

Can I conclude from your reply that 'infused' should be used in my sentence? Thus the sentence should read as follows:

True Buddha Nichiren Daishonin infused His life into the Gohonzon.

The fact that He is immortal and omnipresent has no relevance to the choice of the verb. Hence, 'has infused' cannot be used.

That sounds sensible and correct.

But my main concern is that my HK students always felt they had to construct the past tense with "has" or "had" when in most cases these are unnecessary and incorrect.

I would stick with the sentence above as he is understood to have cast off his body at some point as it was mortal.

Are you with SG Hong Kong? I saw Wayne Shorter there at SG Hong Kong when he came to give a talk.

[Tan Elaine]

Are you with SG Hong Kong? I saw Wayne Shorter there at SG Hong Kong when he came to give a talk.

No.

Thanks for your help, Konungursvia.