Home

Buddhist Philosophy

Sukhavati: Pure Land Buddhism

Pure Land Buddhism - just as Tantric Buddhism - should primarily be regarded as being more of a praxis than a doxa. Over the centuries it has attracted more and more philosophical and even mystical Mahayana-elements to arrive at a climax in the 13th century Jodo-Shinshu, a school of which even Christmas Humphreys (who by the way had no sympathy whatsoever for Shin Buddhism!) had to admit that "it seems to be twofold, the frank confession that the older Buddhism is too difficult for the masses, and must therefore be ‘simplified’, and at the other extreme a doctrine so lofty, so subtle that only the rarest minds could understand and use it." (Buddhism, 1952, p. 164).

Also D.T.Suzuki, mainly known for his works concerning Zen Buddhism, stated that it is "Japan’s major religious contribution to the West" (Shin Buddhism, 1970).

Already early in the history of Buddhism, we notice a tendency towards regarding the historical Buddha Gautama Sakyamuni as being more than THE teacher who by his own effort realized Enlightenment and passed on the Dharma to his fellow-beings.

The tendency to mythologize ‘The Teacher’ is a deeply human almost unavoidable characteristic, something which even Islam and its prophet Muhammed could not avoid. The Buddhist teachings concerning anatta and nirvana however do not offer the possibility of a mystical devotion (bhakti), in which the person of the devotee is absorbed in or merged with the person of the adored deity.

Doctrinally we see - already within the early Hinayana - the establishment of a ‘shifting towards abstraction’. The Mahasanghika, and especially the school of the Lokottaravadins, state e.g. that the Buddha is an ‘outer-worldly’ being. In the Lotus Sutra, of which the oldest parts date back to the 2nd centure BCE, we can read the tendency to regard the historical Buddha as a manifestation of eternal - beyond space/time - Buddhahood.

Not only within popular devotion, but also doctrinally the Buddha-figure will gradually receive the aspect of a "Savior". His Wisdom and Compassion helps beings to walk the way towards liberation. He forms the natural force-field - a ‘Buddha-field’ (buddha-ksetra) or ‘Buddha-land’ - through or in which beings are drawn towards enlightenment. Together with the emergence of the Greater Vehicle, the number of Buddha-figures multiplies infinitely, and with it also the number of Buddha-lands in which each Buddha forms the central point of attraction. Within religious practice however it appeared that one Buddha-land was more successful than the other. In the popular view only a few Buddha’s and Bodhisattva’s were effectively experienced as "Saviors". The most ‘successful’ Buddha-land is undoubtedly Amitabha’s Pure Land Sukhavati (the ‘Realm of Bliss’) which in the course of the centuries eclipsed all other Buddha-lands.

The reason for this can most probably be found in the name of this Buddha-figure itself. Amitabha (amita-abha = ‘who’s light is immeasurable’) means after all ‘Immeasurable Light’; besides this he carries a second name: Amitayus (amita-ayus = ‘who’s life is immeasurable’), which means ‘Immeasurable Life’. This led (especially in China) to the adoption of a series of comparisons which gave this Buddha-figure a unique aspect, which is in a way compressed in the name by which this Buddha became known in China and other countries within the Chinese cultural sphere of influence:

Amitabha = Infinite Light = Wisdom = Infinity in space
Amitayus = Infinite Life = Compassion = Infinity in time

Amitabha-Amitayus thus becomes A-mi-t’o-Fo, the Infinite Buddha, the Infinity of Enlightenment (prajña), which is identical to the Infinity of Compassionate Activity (karuna), and which can only metaphorically be experienced as a ‘person’.

The special place that this Buddha will occupy in the Far East becomes apparent from the fact that the sutras related to him where among the first to be translated and disseminated into Chinese.

Basically there are three sutras that are regarded as the basic texts for classical Pure Land Buddhism:

The Larger Sutra on the Adornments of the Pure Land (Sk. Sukhavati-vyuha-sutra, Ch. Wu-liang-shou-ching, Jap. Muryoju-kyo, from now on referred to as Dai-kyo or ‘Larger Sutra’, T 360-364)
The Sutra on the Meditation on Amitayus (Sk. Amitayur-dhyana-sutra, Ch. Kuan-wu-liang-shou-ching, Jap. Kanmuryoju-kyo, shortened to Kan-gyo or ‘Meditation Sutra’, T 365), and
The Shorter Sutra on the Adornments of the Pure Land (Sk. Sukhavati-vyuha-sutra, Ch. O-mi-t’o-ching, Jap. Amida-kyo, T 366-367).

It is especially the first text, the Larger Sutra, which is important for our exposition. It contains after all the mythological image out of which the salvific structure of Pure Land Buddhism becomes apparent. The first chapter relates the story of a king who lived a very long time ago - in times immemorial - who, strongly moved by the suffering of beings, forsakes his throne and becomes a monk named Dharmakara. As a monk he meets the Buddha Lokesvararaja. This meeting moves him so much that he decides to become a Buddha himself, creating a Buddha-land in which all the limitations characteristic to other Buddha-lands would be overcome, and in which all the ‘benefits’ of all other Buddha-lands would be gathered. After meditating on all the Buddha-lands for a period of 5 kalpas, he formulates his insights in 48 special vows. After practicing his vows for an innumerable length of time he finally realizes enlightenment and becomes Amitabha Buddha, thus establishing his Buddha-land Sukhavati, the Land of Ultimate Bliss, in Chinese translated as ching-t’u: the Pure Land (Jap. Jodo).

The beings who sincerely entrust themselves to Amitabha and say his Name, are born in this Pure Land, despite their heavy karmic burden. Conventionally this Pure Land was regarded as a transitory stage from which it became possible to realize enlightenment. The beings who are born there in a lotus find themselves in the most beneficial and effective circumstances to hear and live the True Teaching (Saddharma).

Faith in Amitabha’s Pure Land increased strongly and continuously in India; we find reflections of this in the numerous works, both sutras and sastras, such as e.g. in the Dasabhumikasastra attributed to Nagarjuna, or the Ratnagotra-vibhaga of Sthiramati. The authors of these works express their sincere aspiration for birth in Sukhavati.

Pure Land Thought in China would take a different course. Not only did Amitabha receive a soteriological function, he also received a clear cosmological/philosophical structure; the texts were approached through a kind of close reading through which more dynamic connotations became apparent.

The first person in China of whom it is known that he aspired for "Birth in the Pure Land" is a certain Ch’ueh Kung-ts’e (Ts’e, Duke of Ch’ueh) who lived during the Eastern Tsin dynasty (317-419). From this Ts’e onward more and more people are mentioned as Pure Land devotees.

The most known, besides Chihtun (314-366) and Taoan (312-385), is without doubt the learned monk Huiyüan (334-417), who is regarded by later Pure Land masters as their very first patriarch. It is with him that the Pure Land movement becomes an important religious current. On Lu-shan, a mountain in the South of China, he established the ‘White Lotus Society’ (Pailien she), a community of monks and lay-people who devoted themselves to meditation and visualization on e.g. the appearance of Amitabha, in order to realize what is called nien-fo sanmei (Jap. nembutsu zammai) or the concentrated practice whereby the aspirant realizes a unity with Amida Buddha. This emphasis on meditation will for a long time characterize Pure Land Buddhism in China (and also in Japan, at least until the Kamakura period).

From the Liu-Sung-dynastie (420-479) onward Pure Land Buddhism will spread throughout the whole of China. This is also the Era of the great translators: Kumarajiva, Punyayasas, Paoyun, Bodhiruci, Bhuddhabhadra, Kalayasas. During the Chou and Sui dynasties (557-618) we see the arising of numerous works and commentaries on the Pure Land Sutras - also by famous monks of other traditions, such as Chitsang, Fa-ch’ang, Chih-I, Chih-yen. This all testifies to a vivid interest for Pure Land Buddhism, even if the interpretations were mostly very divergent.

The more ‘exclusive’ Pure Land masters, who are also decisive for the later evolution of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan, (T’an-luan, Tao-ch’o, and Shan-tao) will lay the foundations for the exclusive nien-fo practice.

So, e.g., T’an-luan (476-542) reads that one should make a distinction between on the one hand the contemplation-and-recitation of the Name of Amitabha Buddha (nien-fo, Jap. nembutsu) and on the other hand the attitude of the devotee: the deep mind of unconditional entrusting (Ch. hsin-hsin, Jap. shinjin) in the Infinite Compassion of Buddha-Power.

He differs from Hui-yüan in the sense that where the former claims that one should visualize (see) the Buddha in samadhi, T’an-luan states that the Pure Land is solely based on Amida’s Salvific Power. The sutras however do not tell us how to see Amida, they do tell us what Amida promised us in his vows. It is therefore not man’s practice that is required by Amida, but his sincere entrusting.

Tao-ch’o (596-645) emphasizes the distinction between the ‘self-power’ (jiriki) of the adept who walks the "Path of Sages", and the ‘Other-Power’ (tariki) of the Infinite Compassion of the Buddha as the dynamic which leads beings to Enlightenment. According to him the beings "in these decadent times of the decline of the dharma" are incapable to walk the difficult path towards enlightenment by their own efforts, and therefore should entrust themselves exclusively to the "Pure Land Path", the salvific power originating from Buddhahood itself.

Shan-tao (613-681) on the other hand will put more emphasis on the verbal expression of the Name. The other traditional ‘right practices’ in the Chinese Pure Land temples are, according to Shan-tao, to be regarded as secondary. Those practices include:

Reciting of Sutras;
Meditating on Amida and his land, to which Shan-tao strangely enough devoted about half of his Commentary on Kan-gyo;
Worshiping Amida through services;
Reciting the Nembutsu
Praising and making offerings to Amida.

Saying the Nembutsu (practice 4) is according to Shan-tao the "right practice among right practices", it being the most efficient act towards the right assurance of Birth in the Pure Land.

In the early years of the T’ang-dynasty Pure Land Studies reach an intellectual climax throughout the whole Far East, because next to the Chinese authors, also a great number of Korean masters became involved.

Yet, the appreciation of Pure Land Teachings was far from unanimous. The Ch’an-schools involved themselves in strong polemics, e.g. concerning the nature of the "Pure Land": was it an ‘internal land’, only existing in the mind; or an ‘external paradise’ within a certain geographical or astronomical reach? These discussions led to an internal reinforcement of the ‘attacked’ party and to the formation of a separate Pure Land School, the Ching-t’u. Up until then Pure Land practices had not been limited to a certain current.

Within all these polemics Pure Land adepts showed that the nien-fo sanmei was an ineffable, deep and wondrous meditation. But also from certain Ch’an-temples arose voices that wanted to work towards a doctrinal reconciliation between Ch’an and Ching-t’u, e.g. by Hsuan-shih, a disciple of the 5th Ch’an patriarch, and by Nan-yang Hui-chung, a disciple of Hui-neng, the famous 6th patriarch of Ch’an who taught the simultaneous practice of "practice and meaning", wherein ‘practice’ was understood as the recitation of nien-fo and ‘meaning’ as the insight which was gained through Ch’an-meditation.

This same syncretistic way of thought became dominant after the great Buddhist persecutions of the later years of the T’ang-dynasty, and has remained a characteristic of the whole of Chinese Buddhism in the centuries to follow.

Ch’an and Ching-t’u were able to survive the persecutions (including the ‘big one’ of 845) for several reasons:

because of their ‘aloofness’ from the temples in the capital (these temples were more closely involved in the political arena and to a certain extend were even dependent on it).
because of the breadth of their basic following;
through their lower material vulnerability.

It is therefore very ‘logical’ that they were prone to grow towards each other, in such a way that - up to this present day - Chinese Buddhism is more or less a convergence, if not a symbiosis/synergy/syncresis, of Ch’an (especially for monks) and Ching-t’u (aimed at the laity), perhaps with a little pinch of T’ien-t’ai added.

Pure Land practice arrives in Japan together with the introduction of Buddhism. Fairly soon it becomes an established practice in almost all schools, especially however in the Tendai-school, which is the by Japan adopted and adapted form of T’ien-t’ai thought. The Pure Land practice as seen in the Tendai is based on Shan-tao’s interpretation: "The practice for Birth is the saying of the Nembutsu ‘Namu Amida Butsu’", an easy but efficient self-power practice, entirely in the spirit of the Smaller Pure Land Sutra (Amida-kyo). It is also out of this Tendai that the concern will grow to proclaim Buddhism as a soteriology to ‘ordinary, ignorant beings’. Those beings who, as it where per definition, lack the power or will necessary for the performance and fulfillment of meditative and/or non-meditative practices.

Such a Tendai monk was e.g. Kuya (also named Koya, 903-972) who roamed the marketplace dancing, singing and juggling, encouraging people to recite nembutsu.

Of greater influence was Genshin (942-1017), whose major work Ojoyoshu, "Essentials for Attaining Birth" made a deep impression in both Japan and China. Yet, the practice of recitation - often in the sense of the mechanical recitation of a mantra - remained being looked upon as a practice for the illiterate, with the ‘provisional’ result of the lotus-birth in Amida’s Western Paradise, out of which one could then realize Final and Definitive Nirvana.

It was up to another Tendai monk to detach the recitation of the Name Namu Amida Butsu from this provisional and somewhat pejorative connotation, and in the same instance to form an autonomous - i.e. apart from the existing temples - "Pure Land School" (Jodo-shu), in which the nembutsu was seen as the central and exclusive practice for both monks and laity.

Honen (also called Genku, 1133-1212) emphasized the fulfillment of the 18th Vow from the Larger Sutra, which he calls the "Primal Vow":

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, the sentient beings of the ten quarters, with sincere mind entrusting themselves, aspiring to be born in my land, and saying my Name perhaps even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain the supreme enlightenment. Excluded are those who commit the five grave offenses and those who slander the right dharma."

According to Honen this implies that Amida Buddha himself guarantees Birth in the Pure Land for all beings who meet the minimum of requirements, i.e. to entrust themselves completely to Other-Power and to concentrate (samadhi) on the recitation of the Name. Honen is a charismatic figure and a pragmatic reformer; in his view, beings in these times of the Decadent Dharma benefit more from a single practice, than from all the intellectual and buddhological theorizing. This simple practice assures Birth in the Pure Land for all, whether they are wise or foolish, men or women, rich or poor, monk or lay, good or "bad"…

His success was overwhelming. The doctrine that anyone, without having to rely on intellectuality or intensive meditative practices and/or rituals, could realize enlightenment, aroused the jealousy and envy of the established temples and monasteries. In 1207 this resulted in the ban of the nembutsu-teaching, during which some of Honen’s disciples got executed. Honen, together with his most important students, is exiled. In 1211 however the ban is lifted, which marks the beginning of the actual flourishing of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, which up to the present day still occupies a predominant place, although it is now divided into three doctrinally diverging branches.

It would be Honen’s disciple Shinran who would draw the consequences from his master’s notions, making them correspond more with the main ideas of Madhyamaka and Yogacara-thought. Shinran emphasized :

the identity of the Pure Land and Nirvana (Enlightenment): The Pure Land is not a transitory phase but is identical to the Final Perfect Enlightenment. Also, the Pure Land is no longer seen as a "Paradise in the West", rather, it is seen as an "abstraktes Gebiet". Amida is not a ruler or god that rules over this ‘land’; he has no form and is not a person. Besides this, in the light of the merit-transference (eko), nirvana is not different from samsara, so that Realization (sho) is nothing else than the ‘return’ towards the world of suffering as ‘Other-Power’.
The absoluteness of Amida’s Other-Power as Dharmakaya, manifested as Great Compassion (dai-jihi: Sk. maha-maitri-karuna) in the Name Namu Amida Butsu (the myogo), which is verbalized in the nembutsu. Saying the nembutsu, especially after hearing the myogo, is not a petition, not a ‘good work’ through which man can be liberated, no, it is an expression of gratitude for the salvation offered by Amida.
Shinjin therefore is the natural activity of karuna (Amida’s Primal Vow) within the human mind. It is the settlement of Birth in this existence: through shinjin man is as it where ‘born anew’, with his passions intact, yet without their karmic implications. Shinjin is as it where the reflection of the Pure Land in this samsaric existence.
All Buddha’s and Bodhisattva’s are contained in Amida, which means that all practices are contained in Amida, the Infinite Buddhahood.