Home | Temple | Calendar | Buddhism | Photo Gallery | Newsletter | Bookstore | Resources and Links

Pure Land Buddhism

1. Pure Land Buddhism (1)
2. Pure Land Buddhism (2)
3. Jodo Shinshu: a Short Presentation (1)
4. Jodo Shinshu: a Short Presentation (2)
5. Tannisho: Introductory Essay
6. Shinran: a Brief Overview of his Life and Works

Pure Land Buddhism: part 2

- 2 -

Among those who were exiled during the prohibition of 1207 we find Shinran (1173-1262).  After having spent 20 years as a monk on Mt. Hiei (Tendai), northeast of Kyoto, he came to the sobering realization that all the meditative and non-meditative practices he had taken upon himself during these years had not brought him one step closer to enlightenment, the goal he had set out for himself.  In his despair he left Mt. Hiei and turned to Honen and his nembutsu-teaching where soon, probably because of his erudition and experience, he became one of the leading proponents of that teaching. 

His exile led him from the aristocratic and culturally refined surroundings of the imperial capital Kyoto to the barren, desolate and recently conquered province of Echigo, in the northwest part of Honshu.[1] The population of this remote area was made up of people living on the fringe of society, illiterate peasants and fishermen, soldiers-colonizers and prostitutes forming a “Wild West” society.  The contact with these people, however, strengthened and deepened Shinran’s experience of Amida’s measureless compassion. The teaching of Other Power, he now knew, didn’t only apply to the saints, sages and scholars of the capital temples but also, and primarily so, to these issendai,[2] in fact, it was the only teaching that offered them the possibility of Enlightenment.

Although he had been officially robbed of his status as monk Shinran inwardly kept considering himself as ‘clergy’ (shaku = member of the Buddha’s family).  When he decided to get married, with the approval of his teacher Honen, he became – in a certain sense – the first married ‘priest’ in Japanese Buddhism.  From then on he referred to himself as “neither monk, nor lay”. 

When the exile was lifted in 1211 Shinran did not return to the capital as one would expect, but instead settled down in Hitachi[3] in order to spread the nembutsu teaching there.  It is only when he reaches the age of 60 that he returns to Kyoto, most likely to continue his literary work.  It is in Kyoto that he completes his major opus, the Kyogyoshinsho [4](“Teaching, Practice, Entrusting, and Realization”), an ‘apologetic’ work written entirely in Chinese.  He however also starts writing numerous religious tracts, hymns and letters in Japanese, something that was rarely done in those days.  When he dies at the age of 90 his teachings are all but unknown, except maybe to a small group of active followers in northern Japan.  It is primarily through the efforts of his daughter Kakushin-ni and his grandsons and great-grandsons that his striking Other Power teaching, the Jodo-shinshu or True Teaching of the Pure Land, became widely known. 

As many reformers before and after him, Shinran did not regard himself as the founder of a new religious tradition.  Jodo-shinshu,[5] according to Shinran, lay comprised in the message of Sakyamuni and gradually and in function of the changing times was developed through a series of seven Patriarchs or Masters. 

It is customary that in order to provide a sense of authority and authenticity, Buddhist traditions provide a historical lineage by referring to a series of patriarchs who in most cases directly succeed one another.  In the Pure Land tradition, however, the patriarchs are those masters who, throughout history, have contributed to the doctrinal development of the teaching.  Patriarchs of the Pure Land tradition are therefore not necessarily historically related, in fact, some of them are separated by centuries.  Honen, e.g., had drawn up a list of 5 patriarchs to establish a doctrinal basis for his Jodo-shu. 

Shinran broadened the list of patriarchs to seven names: two from India, three from China, and two from Japan.  In doing so he did not only emphasize the authenticity, but also the universality of his Buddhist view.  In his hymn, Shoshin-Nembutsu-ge (KGSS: II) he elaborates on his choice of patriarchs. 

Sakyamuni proclaimed Amida’s Infinite Compassion: this is mainly expressed in the Larger Sutra, which in Shinran’s view forms the central purport of the entire Buddhist teaching.  Sakyamuni is none other than the manifestation and voice of Amida Buddha.

The first patriarch (koso), Nagarjuna[6], makes a distinction between the “difficult paths” of conventional Buddhist practices; and the “easy path” of “contemplating-reciting” the Name (Ch. nien-fo, J. nembutsu). 

“There are innumerable modes of entry into the Buddha’s teaching.  Just as there are in the world difficult and easy paths – traveling on foot by land is full of hardship and traveling in a boat by sea is pleasant – so it is among the paths of the bodhisattvas.  Some exert themselves diligently, while others quickly enter Non-retrogression by the easy practice based on faith.” (Dasabhumika-vibhasa-sastra, IX)[7] 

What impresses Shinran most in the second patriarch is the fact that he, Vasubandhu,[8] single-mindedly (Sk. Eka-cittena, Ch. I-hsin) takes refuge in the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life. 

“O World-Honored One, with singleness of mind, I

Take refuge in the Tathagata of Unhindered Light

Shining throughout the Ten Directions,

And aspire to be born in the Land of Peace and Bliss”.[9]

The third patriarch, T’an-luan, (476-542) probably had the greatest influence on Shinran’s thought.  In his Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Discourse, the Ching-t’u-lun chu, T’an-luan rejects the notion of the Pure Land as an intermediary stage between the world of suffering and enlightenment and - totally in the line of Nagarjuna – emphasizes the identity of the Pure Land and Nirvana.  Amida’s Compassion is none other than Dharmakaya[10] in its dynamic aspect, namely Dharmakaya as Expedient Means (upaya), i.e. the Name Namu Amida Butsu.  The ‘working’ (dynamic) of the Name is ‘Other Power’ (Ch. t’a-li, J. tariki), a term first introduced by T’an-luan, which he sees as directly opposite to ‘self-power’ (Ch. tzu-li, J. jiriki), namely that which arises out of one’s own volition and/or calculation, but which usually falls short or stumbles due to its own delusion in relation to the concept of non-self, which after all is a central characteristic of all Buddhist teachings.  “How can there be ‘self-power’ if there is no such thing as ‘self’?” T’an-luan must have asked himself. 

Tao-ch’o (562-645), in the An-lo chi, a commentary on the Meditation Sutra, divides the entire Buddhist tradition in two main branches:  firstly, there is the “Holy Path” or the “Path of Sages” (Shodomon) with which he denotes all schools of Buddhism except Pure Land Buddhism.  The Path of Sages then corresponds to Nagarjuna’s ‘Difficult Path’ and T’an-luan’s idea of ‘self-power’.  Secondly, there is the ‘Pure Land Path’ (Jodomon): given the distance in time since Sakyamuni and given the difficulty and profoundness of the Dharma, all beings in these decadent times should be considered as icchantika, they therefore should all aspire for Birth in Amida’s Pure Land. 

Shan-tao (613-681) bases his views on the Meditation Sutra in stating that the saying of the Name is the “Gate of the Universal Vow” and that therefore nembutsu is the exclusive practice that assures Birth in the Pure Land. 

Genshin (942-1017), the first Japanese patriarch, is important to Shinran with regard to the exclusion-clause mentioned in the 18^th Vow[11].  Persons who are burdened with the heavy karmic evil mentioned in the Vow’s clause can, through the activity of Amida’s unlimited compassion, still attain birth at the highest level of reality.[12] 

Honen (1133-1212), who Shinran regarded as his teacher and inspirer throughout life, thought - and taught - along the lines of Shan-tao and Genshin.  He propagated the nembutsu as exclusive practice and the 18^th Vow as the “Best Selected Original Vow”[13] and the “Vow of Birth through the Nembutsu”[14], in which all 47 other vows were comprised.  Yet, the fact remains that even with Honen’s emphasis on the Vow, his practice of reciting the nembutsu could still be regarded as a self-power practice.  The nembutsu has a high degree of efficiency, not because of the amassment of karmic merit that its practice would entail, but because it is founded on the Original Vow and thus on emptiness which is the true nature of things.  The Primal Vow is none other than the natural working of Dharmakaya as expedient means; Dharmakaya is Suchness (tathata), i.e. Emptiness (sunyata). 

It is remarkable that Shinran would re-interpret the input of the various patriarchs, often in a revolutionary manner.[15] 

So, e.g., Shinran does not follow Honen’s preference for Shan-tao in that he maintains the primacy of the Larger Sutra and as such the primacy of the ‘mind of entrusting’ over the ‘saying of the Name’.  According to Shinran the Meditation Sutra is an ‘expedient means’ (Sk. upaya, J. hoben) corresponding to the 19^th Vow of ‘obtaining merit through the various practices’.  To Shinran, the nembutsu is exclusively Amida’s working in us; Amida is the “doer”, the true sayer of nembutsu, where Shan-tao and Honen maintain that the act of saying the nembutsu is that of the practicer.  Also concerning ‘shinjin’ we notice a profound reinterpretation in Shinran.  According to Shan-tao and Honen the ‘deep mind of entrusting’ is the harmonious combination of the ‘three minds’.[16]  To Shinran, who here relies on T’an-luan’s interpretation of the Larger Sutra, the ‘threefold mind’[17] is not that of the follower, but the mind of Amida itself. 

This typifies the difference between Honen and Shinran.  E.g., Honen will take the 48 Vows literally whereas Shinran will interpret them more freely.  The 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th Vows are considered separately by Honen whereas Shinran emphasizes their interdependency: the ‘normal’ career of the Pure Land follower takes him from the reach of the 19^th Vow (the various meditative and non-meditative practices) to the reach of the 20^th Vow (the recitation of self-power nembutsu), from which the follower then ‘naturally’ progresses to the reach of the 18^th Vow, namely Other Power nembutsu (tariki-no-nembutsu). 

To Honen the recitation of nembutsu is a necessary practice in order to deepen and strengthen the mind of entrusting without which emancipation from the world of suffering is impossible.  To Shinran saying the Name is an expression of gratitude. 

Also to be noted is Shinran’s exclusive devotion to Amida, his rejection of ‘prayers’ and ‘incantations’ for personal gain, his abandoning of disciplinary rules and even more important, of the monastic structure.  The community Shinran envisioned was a tightly knit and horizontally structured lay-community of fellow-practicers (ondobo ondogyo).  Honen on the other hand maintained the monastic structure for his Jodo-shu.  

To Shinran both nembutsu and shinjin are closely interrelated, yet different signs of the working of Infinite Buddhahood.  Together they are the cause (singular!) of the realization of Perfect Nirvana.  This emphasis on non-duality again is characteristic to Shinran.  In relation to this e.g. Shinran made it clear that shinjin is necessarily accompanied by (Other Power) nembutsu, but that (self-power) nembutsu is not necessarily accompanied by shinjin. 

Yet, this doesn’t mean that there is no relationship at all between shinjin and self-power nembutsu.  To Shinran it is exactly this relationship which forms the progressive dynamic from the 20^th to the 18^th Vow.  In Mattosho 11 he writes:  

“Thus, although shinjin and nembutsu are two, since shinjin is to hear and not doubt that you are saved by only a single pronouncing, which is the fulfillment of practice, there is no shinjin separate from nembutsu; this is the teaching I have received.  You should know further that there can be no nembutsu separate from shinjin.  Both should be understood to be Amida’s Vow.  Nembutsu and shinjin on our part are themselves the manifestations of the Vow.”

Yet, in Mattosho 12 he clarifies: 

“Although persons say the Name, if they do not entrust themselves to the Primal Vow that is Other Power, they will surely be born in the borderland.” 

It becomes clear that Shinran’s entire interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism is geared towards overcoming – i.e. transcending - every form of duality.[18]  In this he proves himself to be a conscientious follower of Nagarjuna.  From many of his texts it becomes apparent that Shinran retained much more from Nagarjuna than merely the 9^th Chapter of the Dasabhumika-sastra, (i.e. “Chapter on Easy Practice”) and that without question he was very familiar with the main lines of Madhyamika philosophy. 

From here Shinran arrived at the ultimate consequence.  Just as Nagarjuna, but from a different perspective, he posed the essential, i.e. the an-sich-identity (or rather: non-duality, advaya) of the world of suffering (samsara) and Enlightenment (nirvana).  After all, to Shinran Birth in the Pure Land is not only the realization of Ultimate Perfect Nirvana, Enlightenment, or Buddhahood; it simultaneously is the return (as Other Power) to the world of suffering in order to help other beings attain Birth in the Pure Land. 

This dynamic is called eko (Sk. parinama, Ch. hui-hsiang), literally ‘merit-transference’, which – as is already seen – in Shinran’s case is the working of Other Power.  In KGSS: I-1 Shinran distinguishes two aspects within eko:  eko in the aspect of ‘going’ (oso-eko), in which Other Power as it were ‘pushes’ the ‘being’ towards Enlightenment; and eko in the aspect of ‘returning’ (genso-eko) in which the ‘being’, which through Birth is ‘de-personified’[19] and transformed as Other Power, takes part in the salvific activity of Amida’s Compassion. 

This fundamental unity (or non-duality) of eko leads to the consequence that in actuality there can be no essential difference between ‘self-power’ and ‘Other Power’.  This is wonderfully expressed by the Myokonin Saiichi (1851-1933): 

There is no self-power

There is no other-power

There is only Other Power 

The transcendence of all dualities lies comprised in the Name.  Namu Amida Butsu is therefore not an invocation, not a mantra, nor a prayer formula, but only and exclusively the vocalization of the name of Infinite Buddhahood: ‘Namu Amida Butsu’ hence refers (as signifier) to dharmata-dharmakaya (Dharmabody as Suchness).  The Name (myogo) is the dynamic of Compassion or upaya-dharmakaya (Dharmabody as Expedient Means).  Amida Buddha in this sense is seen as a “theomorphic” manifestation, the ideal representation (sambhogakaya) of the human aspiration for Enlightenment. 

From this perspective Shinran arrives at the following clarifications of the Name:

Namu                                                                Amida Butsu

I, the follower                                                    the Other, the Buddha

Human reality                                                    Human ideal

Self-power                                                         Other Power

Ignorance                                                          Wisdom-Compassion

“Evil”                                                               “Good”

The phenomenal                                                The absolute

Samsara                                                            Nirvana

 With the realization of the Name in the mind of the follower all these dualities are transcended.  In Namu Amida Butsu lies the non-duality of “I” and “Buddha”, of ‘self-power’ and ‘Other Power’, of ‘ignorance’ and ‘Enlightenment’ (which is Wisdom-Compassion, i.e. Buddhahood), and, totally in accordance with Nagarjuna[20], beyond every discursive or intellectual knowing, the ultimate ‘experience’ of the non-duality of the world of suffering and the Pure Land.

 What requires special attention here is Shinran’s attitude in relation to the problem of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.  The working of Other Power is namely not hindered by the ‘goodness’ or ‘evilness’ of beings.  This implies that also the ‘evil person’ - due to Amida’s Compassion - can realize Birth in the Pure Land.  In Tannisho 3 we read:

“Even the good person attains Birth in the Pure Land,

 how much more so the evil person.” 

Shinran and his followers were often accused of antinomianism, namely, the idea that one doesn’t need any moral dictates or, which is worse, that one intentionally can (or even  should…) commit ‘evil’.  This view, according to Shinran, is ‘hongan-bokori’: “taking pride in the Primal Vow”.  In Tannisho 13 he points out the difference between an (evil) act which is committed due to the inability to overcome karmic influences from the past and which therefore in a sense is ‘involuntary’; and an intentional (evil) act which is the cause of unwholesome karmic results.  The latter is a ‘calculation’ (hakarai) through which man alienates himself from the working of the Vow Power.  In Mattosho 19 we read: 

“You must not do what should not be done, think what should not be thought, or say what should not be said, thinking that you can be born in the Pure Land regardless of it.  Human beings are such that, maddened by the passions of greed, we desire to possess; maddened by the passions of anger, we hate that which should not be hated, seeking to go against the law of cause and effect; led astray by the passions of ignorance, we do what should not even be thought.  But the person who purposely thinks and does what he or she should not, saying that it is permissible because of the Buddha’s wondrous Vow to save the foolish being, does not truly desire to reject the world, nor does such a one consciously feel himself a being of karmic evil.  Hence such people have no aspiration for the nembutsu nor for the Buddha’s Vow; thus, however diligently they engage in nembutsu with such an attitude, it is difficult for them to attain birth in the next life.” 

Here one could say that Shinran placed the importance of ethics primarily on the social level.  As a reflection of Amida’s Compassion in this world of suffering one should at least make an effort to pursue the Six Perfections (paramita), without however attaching any religious or salvific significance to it. 

Another striking characteristic of Pure Land Buddhism as it was lived and taught by Shinran is its far-reaching demythologization.  Shinran is however not the only one to endeavor on this path, also Dogen Daishi, founder of the Japanese Soto Zen tradition broke with the mythologizing interpretation of the Teaching. 

However, for Pure Land Buddhism the step towards demythologization is far more radical than for the Meditation schools, since for a large part its popularization depended on mythical elements, which, it must be said, where not taken literally by the spiritual and/or intellectual elite, but nevertheless had placed the teaching within the reach of ‘ordinary’ people.  The mythological splendor of the depictions of the “Western Paradise” proved to have a strong appeal for the illiterate masses of China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Vietnam and Mongolia.  Only through this it became possible to provide the Pure Land teaching with both a popular basis and an extremely subtle philosophical basis.  In this way, e.g., the reading of Pure Land Sutras requires that one accepts different levels of interpretation: a “literal”, primary level, and an “allegorical” level.  The convergence of popular devotion, intellectual and even mystical elements explains both the broad success and the spiritual richness of Pure Land thought. 

Yet, Shinran remains skeptical where mythology is concerned.  To him Amida is primarily the Tathagata ‘Unhindered Light Filling the Ten Directions’.[21]  Here, there really is no more room for wondrous situations and events.  Everything with relation to the Buddha is spontaneous, natural: “Supreme Buddha is formless, and because of being formless is called jinen (‘of itself-ness’; naturalness)” (Mattosho 5).  ‘Naturalness’ is Other Power; Naturalness is that which makes that samsara is not different from nirvana, it is the “overlapping” of ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence’.[22] 

Within this context Shinran flatly rejects the idea of raigo which was – at that time - a very popular concept in the Japanese Pure Land tradition.  According to the Meditation Sutra, the Pure Land adept at the moment of death is welcomed personally by Amida – who surrounded by a host of Bodhisattvas and heavenly beings – guides the dying person to the Pure Land. 

Since according to Shinran, who regarded the Meditation Sutra as a ‘provisional’ teaching, the crucial moment in one’s spiritual life is not the moment of death but the moment of shinjin, raigo is superfluous.  One senses by the way a reluctance in Shinran in applying anthropomorphic or theomorphic attributes to values which in his view are impersonal or transpersonal.  Birth in the Pure Land is Nirvana, Nirvana is dharmakaya, dharmakaya is without color or form (see e.g. KGSS: IV-1; also Yuishinsho-mon’i). 

To Shinran the “Western Paradise” is nothing but a metaphor for Nirvana.  A close-reading from Shinran’s perspective of the first fascicle of the Larger Sutra makes this clear.  And, as we have mentioned before, Birth in “Nirvana = Samsara” is nothing but a ‘return’ to the world of suffering as Other Power. 

The ‘career’ of the Bodhisattva Dharmakara is not the personal feat of an accidental pre-historical figure but 1) the causal stage of Buddhahood[23], and 2) (which comes down to the same thing) the representation of a being aspiring for emancipation, not unlike Maitreya (the ‘future Buddha’) or the Youth Sudhana (from the Avatamsaka Sutra).  Besides, it is not so much Dharmakara who in time becomes Amida Buddha, but Amida Buddha who beyond any conceivable spatio-temporal complex is Dharmakara (i.e. “Storehouse of the Dharma”). 

With Shinran Amida loses all of the anthropomorphic or theomorphic characteristics.  “He” IS Infinite Buddhahood, Ultimate Enlightenment.  “He” is all-embracing: “there is no other Tathagata, there is no other Dharmakaya; Tathagata is itself Dharmakaya.” (KGSS II-84).  All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are comprised within this One Infinite Buddhahood. 

Amida is thus not just the central Buddha figure in Pure Land Buddhism (such as e.g. Vairocana in certain forms of Tantric Buddhism), but really is the Infinity of Buddhahood.  The Buddha-nature which is present in all beings is none other than Tathagata: “This Tathagata pervades the countless worlds; it fills the hearts and minds of the ocean of all beings.” (Yuishinsho-mon’i).  The beings in the Pure Land have neither human nor even divine characteristics, they possess the “Body of Naturalness, Emptiness and Infinity”. (Larger Sutra, I-17) 

To Shinran the nembutsu is no longer the ‘efficient and useful’ practice which it was for Shan-tao and Honen.  The nembutsu, as long as it is uttered in self-power, i.e. towards some purpose or with a specific goal in mind (hakarai), has no value at all.  It is, after all, “non-good” and “non-practice” (Tannisho 8).  Nembutsu is aroused in the abysmal depths of the human heart and mind and is uttered by Amida itself.  It is verbalized not by man, but through man. 

The nembutsu which than flows from our lips is the human reflection of Buddha’s Compassion and to us is nothing more than an outcry of gratitude. 

Just as Enlightenment is the “true nature” of beings, the activity of Amida’s Compassion is the “natural working” of Buddhahood.  This natural working is not a ‘grace’ which originates from a supreme being, but the natural order of things or pattern of Wisdom-Compassion itself.

 Without Wisdom-Compassion, there is neither Buddha nor Buddhahood.  The ‘naturalness’ of the Buddhahood of Namu Amida Butsu is Enlightenment.  That which ‘endarkens’ this Enlightenment is self-power which centers everything around the ‘ego’, and occupies itself with self-calculation and self-justification.

 In this sense Pure Land Buddhism as it is interpreted by Shinran is the ultimate, yet pragmatic consequence of the non-self doctrine of early Buddhism, of the teachings of emptiness and non-duality of Nagarjuna, of the interpenetration doctrine of the Avatamsaka, and of all teachings of the Pure Land Masters.

 This comprehensiveness made that Jodo-shinshu to the present is one of the most important traditions within Japanese Buddhism, one that often was a decisive element in the spiritual (and even socio-political) history of the Land of the Rising Sun.  The importance of Jodo-shinshu, or Shin Buddhism, to the West was probably most eloquently worded by D.T. Suzuki who said it is “Japans major religious contribution to the West”.

ñ