| Pure Land Buddhism | ||
| Pure Land Buddhism |
Pure Land Buddhism: part 1 - 1 -
In the various layers of the Pali Canon we see how the person of the historical Buddha becomes more and more magnificent, more mythological in character. However, this is not necessarily in reference to the theistic trend that at the time swept through the Indian religious scene and which through works such as e.g. the Bhagavad Gita led to the Puranic conceptions of Visnu, Krsna, and Siva. The tendency to mythologize the “teacher” is a deeply human, almost unavoidable characteristic, one that even Islam and its prophet Muhammad could not escape. Yet, the Buddhist teachings concerning anatta (non-self) and nirvana do not really offer the possibility of a mystical devotion (bhakti) in which the person of the devotee is absorbed by – or merged with – the person of the worshiped godhead. This dual shift towards abstraction on the one hand and deification on the other also takes place on a doctrinal level, even within early Hinayana circles. Within the Mahasanghika current, more specifically within the Lokotarravadin school, it is stated that the Buddha is an ‘outer-worldly’ being. In the Lotus Sutra, the oldest parts of which date back to the 2nd century BCE, we notice the tendency of regarding the historical Buddha as a manifestation of eternal, i.e. beyond time and space, Buddhahood.[1] Both within popular devotion and doctrinally the figure of the Buddha gains the aspect of “Savior”. Through his wisdom/compassion he is capable of helping sentient beings traverse the path towards emancipation. He forms a Buddha-field[2] or Buddha-land, comparable to a gravitation field, with which he attracts beings to enlightenment. Simultaneously with the arising of the Mahayana (Larger Vehicle) Buddhas and Buddha-lands multiply infinitely, each specific Buddha-land having a specific Buddha as the central point of attraction. On the practical side, however, it soon became apparent that some Buddha-lands were more successful than others.[3] In the popular eye only some Buddhas and/or Bodhisattvas were actually regarded as “saviors”. The most ‘successful’ by far was Amitabha’s Pure Land, which in time managed to overshadow all other Buddha-lands. The reason for this can probably be found in the name of this particular Buddha. Amitabha (amita + abha = “whose light is immeasurable”) after all means Immeasurable Light. Moreover, he is also called Amitayus (amita + ayus = “whose life is immeasurable”), meaning “Measureless Life”. This led - especially in China – to the formation of a series of associations and comparisons which gave this Buddha-figure a unique aspect which lay comprised in the name through which this Buddha became known in China and other countries within the Chinese cultural realm: Amitabha = Infinite Light = Wisdom = Infinite Space Amitayus = Infinite Life = Compassion = Infinite Time Amitabha/Amitayus thus became A-mi-t’o-fo,[4] the Infinite Buddha or Infinite Enlightenment. The special place that this Buddha will occupy in the Far East is already apparent in the fact that the sutras dedicated to him are among the first to be translated in Chinese[5] and early onwards know a wide distribution throughout the Chinese realm. There are primarily three sutras that are regarded as the basic texts of classical Pure Land Buddhism:
It is especially the first text - the Larger Sutra - which is important in this context, since it contains the mythological expression from which the soteriological structure of Pure Land Buddhism becomes apparent. The first chapter relates how, in a distant past, a king is so moved by the suffering of his fellow-beings that he decides to give up his throne in order to become a monk. As the monk Dharmakara (Dharma Storehouse) he then comes to meet the Buddha Lokesvararaja, an encounter that moves him so profoundly that he decides to become a Buddha himself. In order to establish his own Buddha-land, he then asks the Buddha Lokesvararaja to show him all Buddha-lands throughout the Universe. Lokesvararaja complies with his request and shows him all the Buddha-lands in a single moment. It is then told how Dharmakara contemplated the features of these Buddha-lands for 5 long kalpas[6] in order to distinguish all their qualities and limitations. Taking into account all the finest qualities, and excluding all the limitations, he then formulates his intention in 48 special vows in order to establish his own Buddha-land. To realize his goal he engages in a pure bodhisattva practice which lasts for incalculable kalpas. In the second chapter it is then related how 10 kalpas ago Dharmakara fulfilled his vows and so became Amitabha Buddha. The Buddha-land that resulted from this realization was called Sukhavati, the ‘Realm of Bliss’, which later in China became better known as Ch’ing-t’u, (J. Jodo) the ‘Pure Land’. Beings who sincerely entrust themselves to Amitabha, thereby pronouncing his Name, are born in this Pure Land, despite the eventual heavy karmic burden they carry. Conventionally, the Pure Land is regarded as an intermediary stage from which it becomes possible to realize enlightenment. Beings who are born in the Pure Land find themselves in the perfect circumstance in order to hear and practice the Excellent Dharma (saddharma). It has been suggested that this conception of a “Western Paradise” was borrowed from Iranian (Avestan and mainly Zurvanian)[7] cults. Recent studies however have shown that - both on archeological and philological grounds - this position is historically unfounded, and that the Amitabha cult fits entirely within the Indian religious tradition.[8] Faith in Amitabha’s Pure Land continued to grow rapidly in India. We find ample expression of this in numerous works, both sutras and commentaries (sastra), such as e.g. the Dasabhumika-sastra, attributed to Nagarjuna; or the Ratnagotravibhaga of Sthiramati. The authors of these works express a strong desire for rebirth in Sukhavati. The Pure Land movement in China definitely took on other dimensions. Not only did the Chinese interpret Amitabha in a more cosmic-philosophical structure, they also approached the texts in a different manner. Through a ‘close reading’ different connotations became apparent. The first person of whom it is known that he aspired for birth in the Pure Land is Chu’eh Kung-ts’e (Ts’e, Duke of Chu’eh) who lived during the Eastern Chin-dynasty (317-419). From Ts’e onward, more and more people are mentioned as adepts of Pure Land practices. Most famous among these, besides Chih-tun (314-366) and Tao-an (312-385), is without doubt the scholarly monk Hui-yuän (334-417) – who by later Pure Land masters was regarded as the very first Patriarch. It is with Hui-yuän that the Pure Land movement would become an important religious current in China. On Lu-shan, a mountain in South China, Hui-yuän founded the ‘White Lotus Society’ (Pai-lien she), a group of monks and lay-people dedicated to birth in the Pure Land through the visualization of Amitabha and the realization of nembutsu-samadhi (Ch. nien-fo sanmei, Sk. Buddha-anusmrti-samadhi, or Buddha mindfulness Samadhi). This emphasis on contemplation/concentration (samadhi) will for a long time remain characteristic of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism (and to a large extend also of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, at least until the Kamakura era). From the Liu-Sung-dynasty (420-479) onward Pure Land Buddhism will spread throughout China. This is also the era of the great translators: Kumarajiva, Punyayasas, Pao-yun, Bodhiruci, Buddhabhadra, Kalayasas. During the Chou and Sui-dynasties (557-618) numerous works and commentaries on the Pure Land sutras are written, including works and commentaries by famous monks belonging to other (i.e. non-Pure Land) traditions, e.g. Chi-tsang, Fa-chang, Chih-I, Chih-yen. All of this points to a vivid interest in Pure Land ideas, even when the various interpretations were extremely divergent. The more exclusive Pure Land masters (e.g. T’an-luan, Tao-ch’o, and Shan-tao) who are also of great importance for the later development of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan, will provide the foundation for an exclusive nien-fo (nembutsu) practice. Among these masters we find e.g. T’an-luan (476-542)[9] who reaches the conclusion that one should make a distinction between contemplation and recitation of the Name of Amitabha Buddha on the one hand and, on the other, the deep mind of faith (Ch. hsin-hsin, J. shinjin or unconditional trust) in the measureless compassion of the Buddha’s power. He thereby distinguishes himself from Hui-yuän - who held that one should visualize the Buddha through samadhi - in stating that the Pure Land is entirely founded on Amida’s Vow Power. The sutras do not explain how we can see Amida, they do, however, tell us what the Buddha promised in his Vows. “Therefore, it is not man’s practice that Amida seeks, but his trust.” Tao-ch’o (596-645)[10] will emphasize the distinction between the ‘self-power’ of the follower and the ‘Other Power’ of Infinite Compassion as the dynamic leading towards enlightenment. According to Tao-ch’o sentient beings in these “decadent times of the decline of Dharma” are incapable of efficiently practicing the difficult path towards enlightenment through their own efforts. They should therefore solely entrust themselves to the compassionate activity of Amida Buddha’s Vow Power. Shan-tao (613-681)[11] on the other hand will put greater emphasis on the verbal expression of the Name. Of the so-called five “right practices” (viz. reciting of sutras; contemplation[12]; worshipping; recitation of the Name; and praising and making offerings to Amitabha) he gives primacy to the fourth practice, i.e. recitation of the Name, as the “right practice among right practices”. All other practices he regards as secondary. Reciting the Name of the Buddha is the most efficient act leading to 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 Far East. During this period also a number of Korean masters became involved in Pure Land studies. This, however, did not mean that the appreciation for Pure Land doctrines was unanimous. Heated polemic debates originating mostly from within the Ch’an tradition gradually led to an inner-fortification 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 any particular tradition. It was during these polemic debates that Pure Land supporters showed how the nien-fo sanmei (nembutsu samadhi) was an unsurpassed, deep and wondrous meditation. But also from within certain Ch’an temples there arose a voice towards doctrinal reconciliation of Ch’an and Ching-t’u. Among these voices we find e.g. Hsuan-shih (a disciple of the 5th Ch’an patriarch) and Nan-yang Hui-chung (a disciple of Hui-neng, the famous 6th Ch’an patriarch), who taught the simultaneity of “practice and insight”, in which “practice” was understood as recitation of nien-fo, and “insight” as the insight resulting from Ch’an meditation. Following the great persecutions of Buddhism during the late T’ang this syncretistic way of thought became dominant. It remained a characteristic of Chinese Buddhism for centuries to follow, since also the T’ien-t’ai school had joined ranks in basing its practice on this convergence of devotion, meditation, and ritual. Pure Land practices find their way to Japan together with the introduction of Buddhism. Early on they become established practices in practically all schools, especially within the Tendai school which is based on the Japanese adaptation of Chinese T’ien-t’ai thought. Pure Land practice in the Tendai is mainly based on Shan-tao’s views, namely birth in the Pure Land through recitation of the nembutsu “Namu Amida Butsu”, an easy yet efficient self-power practice, totally in accordance with the Shorter Pure Land Sutra (Amida Kyo). It is also within the Tendai that there arises a concern of proclaiming the Buddhist teaching as a salvific path for ‘ordinary, foolish beings’[13] who – per definition – lack the power and/or the determination to fulfill the strenuous meditative and non-meditative practices. One of those Tendai-monks was e.g. Kuya (also Koya, 903-972). In order to spread the nembutsu teaching among ordinary beings he roamed the market place, singing and dancing, and performing magic while reciting and praising the nembutsu. Of greater influence, however, was Genshin (942-1017) whose major work Ojoyoshu “Essentials for Rebirth” made a deep impression both in Japan and China. In truth however, the recitation of nembutsu, often interpreted as a mere mechanical recitation, was in most cases regarded as a practice for the illiterate which at most would result in a ‘provisional’ lotus-birth in Amida’s Western Paradise, from which it than would become possible to realize Ultimate Nirvana. It was up to another Tendai-monk to free the recitation of the Name Namu Amida Butsu from this provisional and somewhat pejorative connotation, and at the same time to establish an autonomous “Pure Land School” (Jodo-shu) in which the nembutsu – as sole practice - would be the main concern of both monk and lay. Honen (also called Genku, 1133-1212) emphasized the fulfillment of the 18th Vow of the Larger Sutra, which he called the “Primal Vow”:
“If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten directions who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences[14] and abuse the right Dharma.”
According to Honen this meant that Amida Buddha guarantees Birth in the Pure Land to all beings fulfilling this minimum of requirements, namely a complete entrusting in Other Power while concentrating (samadhi) on the recitation of the Name. Honen is a charismatic figure and a pragmatic reformer. He is less concerned with ‘buddhological’ theorizing than he is with this single practice which, in these times of Decadent Dharma, assures Birth in the Pure Land to all beings, whether they are wise or foolish, men or women, rich or poor, monk or lay, ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (given of course the aforementioned clause…). The success of Honen’s approach was overwhelming. The teaching that no matter whom, without having to rely on learning or intensive meditative practices, could realize enlightenment aroused the jealousy and anger of the established temples and monasteries.[15] It is under their pressure that in 1207 the nembutsu-teaching of the Jodo-shu was prohibited. Some of Honen’s disciples were executed, while he and his most important disciples were exiled. This ban on the nembutsu-teaching was, however, reversed in 1211 which resulted in the actual flowering of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. From then on Pure Land Buddhism occupied a predominant position within Japanese Buddhism, a position which it still holds today, although it has since then divided into three doctrinally diverging branches.[16] Notes [1] This vision is that of later Mahayana schools which base their doctrine on the Lotus Sutra [2] ‘buddhakśetra’, literally ‘buddha-field’, in which ‘field’ should be regarded in the sense of ‘sphere of influence’, such as e.g. a magnetic field, a gravitational field, or a mathematical field. [3] In actuality it is only the Buddhas Aksobhya, Amitabha, and Bhaisajyaguru, and the Bodhisattvas Avalokitesvara, Manjusri and Maitreya who form the subject of separate texts in which they and their Buddha-lands are described. [4] Also transliterated as O-mi-t’o Fo. J. Amida Butsu. Vietn. A-di-da-Phat [5] Pratyutpanna-samadhi-sutra in 179 CE (T. 416, 417, 419), soon followed by the now lost first translation of the Larger Sukhavati-vyuha-sutra. Of this sutra there existed 12 (or 11?) translations, of which 5 are presently extant. [6] A kalpa is an inconceivably long period. Traditionally, however, the length of a kalpa was calculated to be 4.320.000.000 years. [7] Especially by Eliot, who also sees a relationship with Manichaeism. Dahlman leans more towards influences from Christianity, Reischauer sees connections with Central Asia. [8] See e.g. G. Tucci “A Propos Avalokitesvara” in “Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques”, Bruxelles, juillet 1951, pp. 173-176. [9] In Ching-t’u-lun chu, Commentary on Vasubandhu’s “Treatise on the Pure Land” (J. Jodo-ron chu, T. 1819) [10] An-lo chi, Treatise on the Land of Peace (J. Anraku-shu, T. 1958) [11] See e.g. his “Commentary on the Meditation Sutra” (Kuan-wu-liang-shou-ching su, J. Kan-muryoju-kyo-sho). [12] Strangely enough he devoted more than half his Commentary on the Meditation Sutra to this practice. [13] Sk. ‘prithagjana’, Ch. fan-fu, J. bombu: the “illiterate”, in contrast to the monks and literate aristocracy. [14] Namely patricide, matricide, killing an ‘arhant’, creating disunity in the Sangha (Buddhist Community), and causing the blood of a Buddha to flow. [15] It could be argued of course that this new teaching would bring with it a loss of income for the established temples and monasteries who relied heavily on donations in return for religious services. [16] 1) Jodo-shu (Pure Land School), subdivided in four branches with slightly different doctrines, yet all emphasizing the recitation of nembutsu. 2) Jodo-shinshu (True Pure Land School), which emphasizes shinjin (True Entrusting), is subdivided in 10 branches (-ha) which share the same doctrines but differ slightly in tradition. Most important are the ‘Western’ (Nishi) Honganji (Jodo-shinshu Hongwanji-ha) and the ‘Eastern’ (Higashi) Honganji (Ohtani Hongwanji-ha). 3) Ji-shu, founded by Ippen Shonin (1239-1289), referring back to Kuya and proclaiming the intensive practice of nembutsu, “as if every moment of this life is the last”. |
|
| © 2002 Akshin Web Design |
