Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?

[DGA]

Does it make sense to practice both Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms simultaneously?

Or, are there significant doctrinal and/or practical considerations from one or both sides that would make such an idea impracticable?

[narhwal90]

I'd say it depends on the extent the practitioner adopts Nichiren's attitude towards Pure Land. I'm ignorant about the varieties of Pure Land at the moment, so am unaware of there are analogous exclusivity issues. There might also be logistical difficulties with altars and sangha & whatnot.

[DGA]

I'd say it depends on the extent the practitioner adopts Nichiren's attitude towards Pure Land. I'm ignorant about the varieties of Pure Land at the moment, so am unaware of there are analogous exclusivity issues. There might also be logistical difficulties with altars and sangha & whatnot.

This raises two interesting questions.

1. What were Nichiren's thoughts on Pure Land practice and doctrine?

2. Is it possible to practice Nichiren's Buddhism adequately if one doesn't approve of Nichiren's teachings on particular topics, such as the appropriateness of various practices?

[narhwal90]

I'd say it depends on the extent the practitioner adopts Nichiren's attitude towards Pure Land. I'm ignorant about the varieties of Pure Land at the moment, so am unaware of there are analogous exclusivity issues. There might also be logistical difficulties with altars and sangha & whatnot.

This raises two interesting questions.

1. What were Nichiren's thoughts on Pure Land practice and doctrine?

Nichiren asserted nembutsu as at best ineffective and at worst, destructive, and focus on Amida as an emmanation vs Sakyamuni is incorrect. I think the bulk of his polemical writings were directed at Pure Land. That said, he was a man of his time writing about issues of the day, it may be some of his language is more about personalities and a literal reading is misleading. I think Q can better address this point.

2. Is it possible to practice Nichiren's Buddhism adequately if one doesn't approve of Nichiren's teachings on particular topics, such as the appropriateness of various practices?

IMHO sure- note the various Nichiren schools. Some of the practices have evolved since Nichiren's time with the requisite skullduggery and politics, so appropriateness is often a relative thing anyhow. Adequately is an interesting term; I think that might mean the practitioner starts seeing transformation in their lives as a result of the practice. If thats happening, the SGI response would probably be "yes, adequate"- I would be surprised if the other schools would say something different though perhaps there would be disagreement related to the individual's practices eg Nichiren Shoshu would not approve of the use of an SGI gohonzon & so on.

[Ricky]

Nope

[DGA]

I notice there's one "yes" vote. I'd like to hear the arguments in favor of this position.

How might these two modes of practice and doctrines be compatible with each other?

[ItsRaining]

Didn't Nichiren say the Ancestors of half the Mahayana schools including Pureland were going to hell?

[narhwal90]

As far as yes, being my own opinion, I don't think reciting nembutsu to a gohonzon would be kosher, but conducting a Nichiren practice in one venue and a Pure Land in another such that they complement seems to make sense. There are surely plenty of examples of those who take up several concurrent practices for some period. Personally my home practice is SGI/Nichiren, but I visit Soto sangha wherever I travel. I have not found one locally yet that suits my interest but I find a lot attractive about that practice in several of the facilities I've visited & should a suitable relationship with a teacher develop, then I'm in. If an informal or kind-of formal Zen practice fits- and I contend it does- why not Pure Land?

As far as doctrinal compatibility, I'm more inclined to view it as a question of methods rather than truth- trying to synthesize a doctrine incorporating both seems more about attachment to view than personal transformation.

[Queequeg]

First we need a definition of Pure Land.

[Admin_PC]

First we need a definition of Pure Land.

Sukhavati-oriented practices is generally how it is understood in East Asian Mahayana and Tibetan Vajrayana discourse. Other practices focused on other Buddhafields typically have other names. Maitreya-oriented practice is technically not a Pure Land practice, for example as only the inner court of Maitreya is the only "pure" part of Tusita heaven. The Medicine Buddha Sutra has a provision about Medicine Buddha and 8 great Bodhisattvas helping practitioners to be born in Sukhavati.

[rory]

First we need a definition of Pure Land.

Sukhavati-oriented practices is generally how it is understood in East Asian Mahayana and Tibetan Vajrayana discourse. Other practices focused on other Buddhafields typically have other names. Maitreya-oriented practice is technically not a Pure Land practice, for example as only the inner court of Maitreya is the only "pure" part of Tusita heaven. The Medicine Buddha Sutra has a provision about Medicine Buddha and 8 great Bodhisattvas helping practitioners to be born in Sukhavati.

I think we're casting back our ideas of of the predominance of Amida's pure land onto the past. As before Honen: monks practiced to get to a variety of Pure Land and yes that was a real ongoing practice and Nichiren has the Pure Land of Tranquil Light. According to single practice Pure Land schools such as Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu there is only one important pure land (they wouldn't deny the existence of others) Kannon sama has her own Pure Land of Mt. Potalaka, and that's totally fine too!
gassho
Rory

[Admin_PC]

I think we're casting back our ideas of of the predominance of Amida's pure land onto the past. As before Honen: monks practiced to get to a variety of Pure Land and yes that was a real ongoing practice and Nichiren has the Pure Land of Tranquil Light. According to single practice Pure Land schools such as Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu there is only one important pure land (they wouldn't deny the existence of others) Kannon sama has her own Pure Land of Mt. Potalaka, and that's totally fine too!
gassho
Rory

Yah, but 浄土宗 Pure Land school, 浄土教 Pure Land teachings - always referred explicitly to teachings centered around Sukhavati.
Saying otherwise is historical revisionism.

[Malcolm]

I think we're casting back our ideas of of the predominance of Amida's pure land onto the past. As before Honen: monks practiced to get to a variety of Pure Land and yes that was a real ongoing practice and Nichiren has the Pure Land of Tranquil Light. According to single practice Pure Land schools such as Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu there is only one important pure land (they wouldn't deny the existence of others) Kannon sama has her own Pure Land of Mt. Potalaka, and that's totally fine too!
gassho
Rory

Yah, but 浄土宗 Pure Land school, 浄土教 Pure Land teachings - always referred explicitly to teachings centered around Sukhavati.
Saying otherwise is historical revisionism.

Tibetan Buddhism has an extremely strong pure land component-- but it is not obvious because it is just part of the architecture of all Tibetan schools; especially Nyingma. In the Nyingma school, Amitabha is regarded as being the dharmakāya; Avalokiteśvara is the sambhogakāya; and Guru Padmasambhava is the nirmanakāya. They all have their own buddhafields; but Amitabha's is indivisible from Akaniṣṭha Ghanavyuha. Avalokiteśvara's is Mt. Potala in S. India. Guru Padmasambhava's buddhafield is on the continent of cannibals, the southwest continent of Camara (likely Madagascar).

By invoking any one of these aspects of the three kāyas, one invokes all.

[markatex]

What prompted this question? The answer is no. There is no way the two are compatible.

[Malcolm]

What prompted this question? The answer is no. There is no way the two are compatible.

What an amazing world we live in, where one form of Buddhism is incompatible with another. Truly a degenerate age.

[Motova]

I'm completely ignorant of Nichiren, why wouldn't they want to be reborn in Amitabha's Pure Land?

Why would any Mahayana practitioner ignore Amitabha's Pure Land?

[Aryjna]

I'm completely ignorant of Nichiren, why wouldn't they want to be reborn in Amitabha's Pure Land?

Why would any Mahayana practitioner ignore Amitabha's Pure Land?

Apparently Nichiren thought all Pure Land practitioners are going to hell. So I don't think it makes any sense to practice both.

[Motova]

Apparently Nichiren thought all Pure Land practitioners are going to hell. So I don't think it makes any sense to practice both.

[Motova]

Apparently Nichiren thought all Pure Land practitioners are going to hell. So I don't think it makes any sense to practice both.

Well we all go to hell eventually don't we? Whether we're in Samsara or Nirvana, eventually we will all to go to hell.

[markatex]

What prompted this question? The answer is no. There is no way the two are compatible.

What an amazing world we live in, where one form of Buddhism is incompatible with another. Truly a degenerate age.

Oh, give it a rest. Lots of forms of Buddhism are incompatible with each other. I like DGA, but I feel like he’s trolling with these questions.