Master Shan-Tao in Promise of Amida wrote:Even if the sky were filled with a proliferation of buddhas
casting their individual lights and extending their broad
tongues and in unison saying that it is misguided for the
common man who has committed offenses to believe that
he can attain birth in the Pure Land through the mere recita-
tion of nembutsu, you must not believe it and must not be
alarmed or doubtful for even a fleeting moment.
Modernist Pure Land teachings
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
To clear up an earlier comment, I said "Buddha" - a Supremely Perfect Awakened one. The bar for this is pretty high (at least in Pure Land), so it's not really a statement about the attainment of the individual. Denying the First and Third Noble Truths, as well as the existence of the Pure Land are not really good ways to go about starting a Buddha Śãsana and spinning the wheel of Dharma, for what it's worth. Of course Shan-Tao said:
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
I think this thread has gotten off track, and I'm just as guilty of this as anybody else.
The purpose of this thread is to introduce and describe the various modern interpretations of Pure Land doctrine.
This thread is not to criticize the interpretations of others (of which I myself am guilty of). However, if someone intends to criticize others, they must realize that they are in effect trying to teach other person. If you are trying to do such, you better make sure what you're teaching falls in line with the Dharma Seals:
All compounded things are impermanent
All conditioned phenomena and experiences are unsatisfactory
All phenomena are non-self
Nirvana is true peace
These Dharma Seals are the guidelines the Buddha gave us to determine if a particular teaching falls within Buddha Dharma or not. Trying to push an interpretation onto someone that denies any of these Dharma Seals will be considered disruptive behavior. Trying to push an interpretation onto someone that denies the teachings of the 3 Pure Land sutras and the Commentaries of the Patriarchs will also be considered disruptive behavior.
Now that we've established that, I'd like to get this thread back on track.
The purpose of this thread is to introduce and describe the various modern interpretations of Pure Land doctrine.
This thread is not to criticize the interpretations of others (of which I myself am guilty of). However, if someone intends to criticize others, they must realize that they are in effect trying to teach other person. If you are trying to do such, you better make sure what you're teaching falls in line with the Dharma Seals:
All compounded things are impermanent
All conditioned phenomena and experiences are unsatisfactory
All phenomena are non-self
Nirvana is true peace
These Dharma Seals are the guidelines the Buddha gave us to determine if a particular teaching falls within Buddha Dharma or not. Trying to push an interpretation onto someone that denies any of these Dharma Seals will be considered disruptive behavior. Trying to push an interpretation onto someone that denies the teachings of the 3 Pure Land sutras and the Commentaries of the Patriarchs will also be considered disruptive behavior.
Now that we've established that, I'd like to get this thread back on track.
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
Shin Pure Land and Zen
I was a bit premature in my listing earlier. There is a major current of Shin Buddhist thought that mixes Pure Land teachings with Zen teachings. The beginning of this is probably with DT Suzuki, but it is also prevalent in the works of former Monshu (Bishop) Koshin Ogui of the Buddhist Churches of America (BCA) and certain ministers such as Rev Fumiaki Usuki. The BrightDawn Sangha that I mentioned earlier I'll try to do some justice to the teachings of some of these thinkers and do my best not to impart any value judgements on their interpretations.
Reverend Ogui's thoughts can be found in the book "Zen Shin Talks". I have it, I haven't read it yet, but I have listened to a number of his Dharma talks. This article from the New York Times from 2006 lists a number of reforms led by Rev Ogui during his time as Monshu (Bishop). He originally trained mediation with Shunryu Suzuki back in the 1960s and introduced it at a number of BCA Shin Churches. Here is a video of Rev Koshin Ogui in his own words. Part 1:
Part 2:
Reverend Usuki's thoughts can be found on the Midwest Buddhist Temple's podcast, with the episode entitled Coming to Jodo Shin Shu. A summary that I gathered from listening to the podcast earlier:
-He says the Pure Land is in this world
-He denies the transcendent
-He denies the existence of the Pure Land as a place one can be reborn
I was a bit premature in my listing earlier. There is a major current of Shin Buddhist thought that mixes Pure Land teachings with Zen teachings. The beginning of this is probably with DT Suzuki, but it is also prevalent in the works of former Monshu (Bishop) Koshin Ogui of the Buddhist Churches of America (BCA) and certain ministers such as Rev Fumiaki Usuki. The BrightDawn Sangha that I mentioned earlier I'll try to do some justice to the teachings of some of these thinkers and do my best not to impart any value judgements on their interpretations.
Reverend Ogui's thoughts can be found in the book "Zen Shin Talks". I have it, I haven't read it yet, but I have listened to a number of his Dharma talks. This article from the New York Times from 2006 lists a number of reforms led by Rev Ogui during his time as Monshu (Bishop). He originally trained mediation with Shunryu Suzuki back in the 1960s and introduced it at a number of BCA Shin Churches. Here is a video of Rev Koshin Ogui in his own words. Part 1:
Part 2:
Reverend Usuki's thoughts can be found on the Midwest Buddhist Temple's podcast, with the episode entitled Coming to Jodo Shin Shu. A summary that I gathered from listening to the podcast earlier:
-He says the Pure Land is in this world
-He denies the transcendent
-He denies the existence of the Pure Land as a place one can be reborn
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
Shin and Social Justice
I received word from another poster that I should check out a modern interpretation of Shin Pure Land in regards to Shinjin (the Mind of Entrusting) and social responsibility. I was able to find the article they recommended and will quote a section below (the link to the full article will be found in the header of the quote).
[quote=""Shinjin and Social Praxis in Shinran’s Thought" by Takamaro Shigaraki, Trans. David Matsumoto"]A SHIN BUDDHIST RESPONSE TO MODERN-DAY CRITICISM
Shinjin, as clarified by Shinran, is established for the first time in
the complete, critical rejection of the logic and value system of the secular
order. As long as the Shin Buddhist follower lives in the midst of
this world, he must live in accordance with the logic and norms of that
order. That much should be fully affirmed. However, at the same time,
shinjin comes to be weakened when one simply follows the logic of that
system, without setting one’s sights securely upon the goal of the Shin
Buddhist path. As long as one’s own shinjin experience is not subjectively
established in opposition to the values of the secular order, one
will be held captive by that system. In such a situation, how could one
expect true and real shinjin to arise or continue?
It is this complete rejection and de-absolutization of the logic
and value system of the secular order, which serves as the bases of
our everyday human lives, that is in itself important. In other words,
one must come to encounter the truth that “the world is false and
deluded,” or “all matters without exception are empty and false,
totally without truth or sincerity.” Only here can the basis for the
genuine realization of true and real shinjin be found. Thus, given the
fundamental rejection of the secular world’s systems of logic and value
in Shinran’s thought, it is quite natural that conventional systems of
ethical norms or principles are not present therein.
It is in that sense that we can accept the suggestions of the three
scholars that were introduced at the outset of this chapter. Yet, this
should not in any way be deemed as somehow unfortunate, since it
does not represent any shortcoming in Shinran’s understanding of
shinjin. On the contrary, because shinjin is the experience of true knowing
as well as the experiencing of truth and reality, the very absence
of ethical norms speaks quite persuasively of the religious purity of
Shinran’s shinjin and of the extent to which it relentlessly continues to
confront secular values.
However, we must ask ourselves: To what extent has the nature
of shinjin been recognized by the traditional doctrinal studies of Jōdo
Shinshū or by its sectarian organizations? As we have already seen
above, has it not been the case that shinjin’s criticism and rejection of
secular values have been insufficient during various periods? And at
times has there not been an adherence to the worldly ethical systems
and political authorities, as well as even a willingness to supplement
and support them? Certainly there have been exceptions, but, from a
broad perspective, can such statements not be made?
Actually, it is here where we can find the foremost reason that
Shin Buddhism traditionally has not been able to construct a logic for
affirmative and positive social praxis in the actual world of the present.
Living with shinjin must involve the complete confrontation with,
opposition to, and de-absolutization of the norms and value system
of the secular order. As long as this point remains unclear, shinjin will
be continually weakened and bound up by the secular logic and value
system, without anyone even being aware of it. Traditional doctrinal
studies and the history of our sectarian organization have repeatedly
given proof of this. Secular values and logic possess that much power;
and indeed because of that, continuing to live with true and real shinjin
is that rigorous. This point must be fundamentally confirmed and
deeply borne in mind by anyone who seeks to understand shinjin in
Shinran’s teachings.[/quote]
I received word from another poster that I should check out a modern interpretation of Shin Pure Land in regards to Shinjin (the Mind of Entrusting) and social responsibility. I was able to find the article they recommended and will quote a section below (the link to the full article will be found in the header of the quote).
[quote=""Shinjin and Social Praxis in Shinran’s Thought" by Takamaro Shigaraki, Trans. David Matsumoto"]A SHIN BUDDHIST RESPONSE TO MODERN-DAY CRITICISM
Shinjin, as clarified by Shinran, is established for the first time in
the complete, critical rejection of the logic and value system of the secular
order. As long as the Shin Buddhist follower lives in the midst of
this world, he must live in accordance with the logic and norms of that
order. That much should be fully affirmed. However, at the same time,
shinjin comes to be weakened when one simply follows the logic of that
system, without setting one’s sights securely upon the goal of the Shin
Buddhist path. As long as one’s own shinjin experience is not subjectively
established in opposition to the values of the secular order, one
will be held captive by that system. In such a situation, how could one
expect true and real shinjin to arise or continue?
It is this complete rejection and de-absolutization of the logic
and value system of the secular order, which serves as the bases of
our everyday human lives, that is in itself important. In other words,
one must come to encounter the truth that “the world is false and
deluded,” or “all matters without exception are empty and false,
totally without truth or sincerity.” Only here can the basis for the
genuine realization of true and real shinjin be found. Thus, given the
fundamental rejection of the secular world’s systems of logic and value
in Shinran’s thought, it is quite natural that conventional systems of
ethical norms or principles are not present therein.
It is in that sense that we can accept the suggestions of the three
scholars that were introduced at the outset of this chapter. Yet, this
should not in any way be deemed as somehow unfortunate, since it
does not represent any shortcoming in Shinran’s understanding of
shinjin. On the contrary, because shinjin is the experience of true knowing
as well as the experiencing of truth and reality, the very absence
of ethical norms speaks quite persuasively of the religious purity of
Shinran’s shinjin and of the extent to which it relentlessly continues to
confront secular values.
However, we must ask ourselves: To what extent has the nature
of shinjin been recognized by the traditional doctrinal studies of Jōdo
Shinshū or by its sectarian organizations? As we have already seen
above, has it not been the case that shinjin’s criticism and rejection of
secular values have been insufficient during various periods? And at
times has there not been an adherence to the worldly ethical systems
and political authorities, as well as even a willingness to supplement
and support them? Certainly there have been exceptions, but, from a
broad perspective, can such statements not be made?
Actually, it is here where we can find the foremost reason that
Shin Buddhism traditionally has not been able to construct a logic for
affirmative and positive social praxis in the actual world of the present.
Living with shinjin must involve the complete confrontation with,
opposition to, and de-absolutization of the norms and value system
of the secular order. As long as this point remains unclear, shinjin will
be continually weakened and bound up by the secular logic and value
system, without anyone even being aware of it. Traditional doctrinal
studies and the history of our sectarian organization have repeatedly
given proof of this. Secular values and logic possess that much power;
and indeed because of that, continuing to live with true and real shinjin
is that rigorous. This point must be fundamentally confirmed and
deeply borne in mind by anyone who seeks to understand shinjin in
Shinran’s teachings.[/quote]
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
Dear PorkChop
It has come to my attention that I may have been guilty of 'putting words in the mouths of masters' on my Muryoko website. I would be appalled to discover that I have, indeed, committed such an egregious offence as I am often quick to charge others with the same thing when I see it! I agree that it is dishonest to knowingly 'graft interpretations' back onto authors from the past who cannot 'defend themselves'. If I have actually distorted any master's teaching then my only defence is that I genuinely believed that any interpretation I proposed was valid. If I have seriously erred in this respect, then I truly regret having misled anyone and would certainly be happy to make amends. Perhaps you might be so kind as to send me an email via my website pointing out any erroneous interpretations so that I may rectify them.
Many thanks and all best wishes,
John P
It has come to my attention that I may have been guilty of 'putting words in the mouths of masters' on my Muryoko website. I would be appalled to discover that I have, indeed, committed such an egregious offence as I am often quick to charge others with the same thing when I see it! I agree that it is dishonest to knowingly 'graft interpretations' back onto authors from the past who cannot 'defend themselves'. If I have actually distorted any master's teaching then my only defence is that I genuinely believed that any interpretation I proposed was valid. If I have seriously erred in this respect, then I truly regret having misled anyone and would certainly be happy to make amends. Perhaps you might be so kind as to send me an email via my website pointing out any erroneous interpretations so that I may rectify them.
Many thanks and all best wishes,
John P
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
JohnP
I've been looking into this since I received your message this morning. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what was going through my head when I made that statement. I believe the statement stems from either of a couple of possible egregious errors on my part.
The first possibility:
I misread this thread: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 75#p306275
My comment would've derived from misreading the initial quote in the first post in that topic, thinking that Shinran's words were being used to make the case of the thread title, that Dharmakara was simply Expedient Means. If I'd actually looked further into it, I would've noticed a much more nuanced view, supported by actual statements from Shinran, in your article Conceptions of the Absolute in Mahayana Buddhism and Shinran. In other words, it wasn't the statements of the actual article at issue, but how it was perceived to be used in the context of another discussion.
The second possibility:
A misattribution coupled with a statement used out of context. The statement "Shinran, however, regarded the Daimuryojukyo as the central and all-important sutra," taken from the article which was actually by Harold Stewart, titled Jodo Shu and Shin Shu was being used elsewhere to completely dismiss the relative worth of other sutras in Jodo Shin Shu thought. Of course we know it's from the Contemplation Sutra that Shinran's understanding of the Primal Vow in the Daimuryojuko came to be refined as to view the statements about the "5 grave offenses and the abuse of the Right Dharma" as provisional. Yes the Daimuryojuko gets referenced almost 150 times in the Collected Works of Shinran (Vol 1), but the Contemplation Sutra gets referenced over 50 times, the Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra gets referenced 6 times, The Amida Sutra 19 times, and the Nirvana sutra over 20 times. It would seem Shinran's thought wasn't limited to the one sutra, which was not the case being made in the article, but someone referencing the article out of context.
Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I'm sorry if this has caused you any undue stress. I'll definitely make sure to be more careful in the future.
I've been looking into this since I received your message this morning. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what was going through my head when I made that statement. I believe the statement stems from either of a couple of possible egregious errors on my part.
The first possibility:
I misread this thread: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 75#p306275
My comment would've derived from misreading the initial quote in the first post in that topic, thinking that Shinran's words were being used to make the case of the thread title, that Dharmakara was simply Expedient Means. If I'd actually looked further into it, I would've noticed a much more nuanced view, supported by actual statements from Shinran, in your article Conceptions of the Absolute in Mahayana Buddhism and Shinran. In other words, it wasn't the statements of the actual article at issue, but how it was perceived to be used in the context of another discussion.
The second possibility:
A misattribution coupled with a statement used out of context. The statement "Shinran, however, regarded the Daimuryojukyo as the central and all-important sutra," taken from the article which was actually by Harold Stewart, titled Jodo Shu and Shin Shu was being used elsewhere to completely dismiss the relative worth of other sutras in Jodo Shin Shu thought. Of course we know it's from the Contemplation Sutra that Shinran's understanding of the Primal Vow in the Daimuryojuko came to be refined as to view the statements about the "5 grave offenses and the abuse of the Right Dharma" as provisional. Yes the Daimuryojuko gets referenced almost 150 times in the Collected Works of Shinran (Vol 1), but the Contemplation Sutra gets referenced over 50 times, the Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra gets referenced 6 times, The Amida Sutra 19 times, and the Nirvana sutra over 20 times. It would seem Shinran's thought wasn't limited to the one sutra, which was not the case being made in the article, but someone referencing the article out of context.
Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I'm sorry if this has caused you any undue stress. I'll definitely make sure to be more careful in the future.
-
Dharma Flower
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
- Contact:
Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings
[/quote]Admin_PC wrote:Shin and Social Justice
I received word from another poster that I should check out a modern interpretation of Shin Pure Land in regards to Shinjin (the Mind of Entrusting) and social responsibility. I was able to find the article they recommended and will quote a section below (the link to the full article will be found in the header of the quote).
[quote=""Shinjin and Social Praxis in Shinran’s Thought" by Takamaro Shigaraki, Trans. David Matsumoto"]A SHIN BUDDHIST RESPONSE TO MODERN-DAY CRITICISM
Shinjin, as clarified by Shinran, is established for the first time in
the complete, critical rejection of the logic and value system of the secular
order. As long as the Shin Buddhist follower lives in the midst of
this world, he must live in accordance with the logic and norms of that
order. That much should be fully affirmed. However, at the same time,
shinjin comes to be weakened when one simply follows the logic of that
system, without setting one’s sights securely upon the goal of the Shin
Buddhist path. As long as one’s own shinjin experience is not subjectively
established in opposition to the values of the secular order, one
will be held captive by that system. In such a situation, how could one
expect true and real shinjin to arise or continue?
It is this complete rejection and de-absolutization of the logic
and value system of the secular order, which serves as the bases of
our everyday human lives, that is in itself important. In other words,
one must come to encounter the truth that “the world is false and
deluded,” or “all matters without exception are empty and false,
totally without truth or sincerity.” Only here can the basis for the
genuine realization of true and real shinjin be found. Thus, given the
fundamental rejection of the secular world’s systems of logic and value
in Shinran’s thought, it is quite natural that conventional systems of
ethical norms or principles are not present therein.
It is in that sense that we can accept the suggestions of the three
scholars that were introduced at the outset of this chapter. Yet, this
should not in any way be deemed as somehow unfortunate, since it
does not represent any shortcoming in Shinran’s understanding of
shinjin. On the contrary, because shinjin is the experience of true knowing
as well as the experiencing of truth and reality, the very absence
of ethical norms speaks quite persuasively of the religious purity of
Shinran’s shinjin and of the extent to which it relentlessly continues to
confront secular values.
However, we must ask ourselves: To what extent has the nature
of shinjin been recognized by the traditional doctrinal studies of Jōdo
Shinshū or by its sectarian organizations? As we have already seen
above, has it not been the case that shinjin’s criticism and rejection of
secular values have been insufficient during various periods? And at
times has there not been an adherence to the worldly ethical systems
and political authorities, as well as even a willingness to supplement
and support them? Certainly there have been exceptions, but, from a
broad perspective, can such statements not be made?
Actually, it is here where we can find the foremost reason that
Shin Buddhism traditionally has not been able to construct a logic for
affirmative and positive social praxis in the actual world of the present.
Living with shinjin must involve the complete confrontation with,
opposition to, and de-absolutization of the norms and value system
of the secular order. As long as this point remains unclear, shinjin will
be continually weakened and bound up by the secular logic and value
system, without anyone even being aware of it. Traditional doctrinal
studies and the history of our sectarian organization have repeatedly
given proof of this. Secular values and logic possess that much power;
and indeed because of that, continuing to live with true and real shinjin
is that rigorous. This point must be fundamentally confirmed and
deeply borne in mind by anyone who seeks to understand shinjin in
Shinran’s teachings.
I am currently reading Heart of the Shin Buddhist Path by Takamaro Shigaraki, and what I've seen so far is that he's trying to liberate the teachings of Shinran from the medieval commentators who followed after him.
While this might offend some people, it does not in and of itself make the Rev. Shigariki a "modernist." If anything, it's an attempt to restore what Shinran originally taught, and he uses the work of Shinran, rather than just his own opinion, in this attempt.
Takamaro Shigaraki is a Buddhist priest and scholar, recognized as one of the leading Shin Buddhist thinkers in the world today. His innovative approach to traditional Shin Buddhist ideas via comparative religious scholarship and rational analysis has made him a cause celebre in the Shin Buddhist world. He has served as president of Ryukoku University, one of Japan's oldest and most prestigious universities, where he received his PhD in literary studies and is a Professor Emeritus of Shin Buddhist studies. Dr. Shigaraki has also served as Chairman of the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, the largest Shin Buddhist organization in the world.
http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors ... /451425870