Modernist Pure Land teachings

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by DGA »

Hi all,

I've been reading some of the engaging discussion here and I notice the term "modernist" being used in ways that are not always consistent. Sometimes it's a label that practitioners use to describe themselves; sometimes it's used as a term to categorize others; sometimes it seems to have pejorative connotations. I'd like to know what people here mean when they describe themselves or others as "modernists," and also to find out if there are any particular institutions or writers or teachers of Pure Land practice that are consistently "modernist" in orientation. I think this will help clarify the discussion for many of us. Thanks.
dsaly1969
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by dsaly1969 »

My perception of Buddhist modernism is traditional Buddhist practices and teachings reinterpreted through the lens of modern understanding while keeping the practices intact which is what differentiates it from "secular Buddhism". In modern Shin Buddhism at least in America, one can find a range of understandings ranging from more traditionalist to more modernist in understanding among both laity and ministers. Modernists would tend to be agnostic rather than outright deny traditional understandings of such things as literal rebirth (there is more focus on moment by moment rebirth), literal understandings of Amida and the Pure Land, etc. Alternative understandings of these concepts - in the case of Shin, the understandings of Pure Land Buddhism do seem to be influenced by Ch'an "Mind-Only" views of Pure Land. Often it has been my experience that people move along this spectrum of understandings perhaps a number of times during their lives. I have moved from a more "pure" modernist to somewhere between the modernist and traditionalist understandings (which I see as embracing the best of both). Some may move in the opposite direction or even both directions. I think it depends on what we may need at the time.

I personally think that both sides of interpretation should really stop antagonizing and arguing with each other as it is unproductive and just creates anger and conflict. Both sides have that unfortunate human tendency to be dismissive towards the "opposing" sides when both have some valuable insights.

I found modernism not only among Shin Buddhists but among other Japanese schools as well such as Rissho Kosei-kai, etc. According to Wikipedia it seems to be happening in quite a few schools.

In my area of California there are some Shin Buddhist temples (some affiliated with Nishi and others with Higashi) that seem to identify more with modernist understandings from what they put on their websites (which might tell you more about the position of the minister) although they never use the term "modernist". Most temples describe Shin Buddhism from a more traditionalist grounded viewpoint (I think of proper modernism as extending from that core basis). In practice though they would all be welcome to traditionalist understandings as the practices remain traditional as well as welcome to modernists as most dharma talks tend to deal with everyday life applications of Buddhadharma rather than metaphysics.

I think the books by Alfred Bloom, Taitetsu Unno, and Kenneth Tanaka would probably reflect a more "modernist" understanding of Shin Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_modernism
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by steveb1 »

Yes, that's been said of Dr. Bloom and others you mention. I've never understood the full-blown modernist position myself because it seems to reject the Transcendent - something that even Shakyamuni never did. If the Transcendent isn't real/doesn't exist, then it seems to me that we are forever trapped within samsara with no "escape hatches" at all...
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

I can see how it's confusing. There are a number of different interpretations of Pure Land which can be thought of as "modernist".
The 2 main ones are:

1. The line of Higashi Honganji Shin Buddhist thinkers starting with Kiyozawa Manshi (清沢 満之, 1863-1903) along with his students Akegarasu Haya (暁烏 敏, 1877-1954), Soga Ryōjin (曽我 量深, 1875-1971), and Kaneko Daiei (金子 大栄, 1881-1976). This continues today with Dr Nobuo Haneda, Kubose's Zen-infused Bright Dawn, the Dobokai Movement, and arguably Alfred Bloom. Each one has had slightly different ways of looking at the teachings of Jodo Shin Shu.

In general, these thinkers think step away from a literal reading of the Sutras & Shinran. Their concept of Amida, or Tathagata can range from purely metaphorical (Bloom) to very subtle/profound. Some deny literal rebirth and the concept of the Pure Land as a post mortem destination altogether.

Here's an example from Kiyozawa's "December Fan": [quote=""December Fan" translated by Nobuo Haneda p53"]“What is my religious conviction? It is to trust in Tathagata. What is the Tathagata in
which I trust? It is the fundamental reality underlying my existence as a believer.”[/quote]
From Kiyozawa's "Waga Shinnen" ("My Faith"): [quote=""Waga Shinnen" translated by Shojun p151"] “The Tathagata’s potentiality is supreme...The Tathagata’s potentiality comprehends the ten
directions and acts freely and unrestrictedly. I take refuge in the wondrous power of the
Tathagata and receive great peace and calm. Surrendering the great matter of life and
death to the Tathagata, I never feel any unrest of dissatisfaction.” [/quote]

On Soga's Wiki page, there is a quote from the chapter Rennyo's Position in Modern Shin Buddhist Studies - Soga Ryojin's Reinterpretation by Kaku Takeshi, which appears in the book "Rennyo and the Roots of Modern Japanese Buddhism" in displaying the differentiation between this Soga's line of thought and Mind Only Pure Land interpretations:
"Those who believe in 'self-power' proudly boast, 'I am Tathagata!' Those of other Pure Land sects vainly lament this life, saying, 'The Tathagata is the Tathagata.' We [Jodo Shinshu followers] are surprised by the wondrous meaning of 'the Tathagata is me.' At the same time, we are aware that ultimately, 'I am me and not Tathagata.'"
They tend to stay within the typical Shin framework of the sentient being as "bonbu" - a foolish being plagued with kleshas, absolutely incapable of wisdom & compassion, and no hope of escaping samsara on one's own. The Pure Land may not be a place, but it is not necessarily this world. Samsara is not reified as the Pure Land, but sought to be transcended as a defiled world that is "fraught with discriminations"... Again, from "Waga Shinnen" ("My Faith"):[quote=""Waga Shinnen" translated by Shojun p150"]“..the Tathagata in which I believe is the basic potentiality that enables me – who
am utterly incapable of discriminating between good and evil, truth and untruth,
happiness and unhappiness, and therefore unable to make even a single move in any
direction...in this world fraught with discriminations... – to live and die in this world
dispassionately and calmly. Without putting faith in this Tathagata, I can neither live
nor die.”[/quote]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Humanistic Buddhism- a Chinese Chan movement that seeks to create a Pure Land on this earth. The movement was begun by Chinese monk Taixu and his famous student Yin Shun. It continues today through the likes of Master Cheng Yen and her Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation.

These groups tend to follow teachings on Mind Only Pure Land, which are heavily influenced by the Vimalakirti Sutra statement "when the Mind is Pure the Land is Pure". They largely teach improving situations here in this world for suffering people through charitable activities.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think that the biggest issue is that these teachings are actually fairly subtle, based on experiences of particular practitioners. They can easily be misunderstood, so taking random quotes as official statements of doctrine can be dangerous. The situation is compounded by the dangers inherent to mixing and matching doctrines, then presenting the new creation as the preferred interpretation of traditional schools.

For example: Imagine if you take a misreading of Mind Only Pure Land & Humanistic Buddhism statements to say that Amida & the Pure Land are only figments of one's imagination as a foundational doctrinal principle. Then you couple that principle with a standpoint on practice that borrows the Shin views on the absolute futility of Self Power practices, not requiring any sort of cultivation, precepts, or anything else. You now have people that are telling themselves that they are Buddhas, that there is no one that can help, that there is no liberation, and that there is not a single thing they have to do - worse yet, that there is not a single thing that they can do. This scenario seems much worse than the worst-case-scenario stemming from a misreading of Hongaku thought, don't you think?
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by DGA »

dsaly1969 wrote:My perception of Buddhist modernism is traditional Buddhist practices and teachings reinterpreted through the lens of modern understanding
Thank you for this. I have to say that I'm now more confused than I was before I started.

What's a "modern understanding" and who gets to decide? If the present is modernity, then any extant view is prima facie a modern one, no? If not, then modernity means something other than periodization; it really implies a kind of hierarchy.

(this is a problem in McMahon's book on Buddhist modernism, by the way)
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by DGA »

PorkChop wrote:
In general, these thinkers think step away from a literal reading of the Sutras & Shinran. Their concept of Amida, or Tathagata can range from purely metaphorical (Bloom) to very subtle/profound. Some deny literal rebirth and the concept of the Pure Land as a post mortem destination altogether.
Thanks for the concise definition and the context.
For example: Imagine if you take a misreading of Mind Only Pure Land & Humanistic Buddhism statements to say that Amida & the Pure Land are only figments of one's imagination as a foundational doctrinal principle. Then you couple that principle with a standpoint on practice that borrows the Shin views on the absolute futility of Self Power practices, not requiring any sort of cultivation, precepts, or anything else. You now have people that are telling themselves that they are Buddhas, that there is no one that can help, that there is no liberation, and that there is not a single thing they have to do - worse yet, that there is not a single thing that they can do. This scenario seems much worse than the worst-case-scenario stemming from a misreading of Hongaku thought, don't you think?
Yeah, that's a mass of contradictions: I am at once Buddha and incapable of becoming Buddha; my nature is that of liberation, and liberation is impossible for me. You're right, that's hongaku tied up in weird knots.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by DGA »

Practitioners disagree, and some have different objectives, while others have different means to accomplish the same objective. I think it makes more sense to distinguish a practice or a teaching by its objective. Does it tend toward the realization of Buddhahood? Or is it oriented toward a samsaric objective of some kind? That's all that really matters in my own opinion. The rest are all nuances and differences in strategy and tactic.

*Moderator note: Removed reference to deleted content*
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

Moderator note:
Sorry for the interruption.
Cleaning up posts in regards to someone subverting a 24hour ban.
They just earned themselves a permanent banning.
dsaly1969
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by dsaly1969 »

PorkChop wrote: I think that the biggest issue is that these teachings are actually fairly subtle, based on experiences of particular practitioners. They can easily be misunderstood, so taking random quotes as official statements of doctrine can be dangerous. The situation is compounded by the dangers inherent to mixing and matching doctrines, then presenting the new creation as the preferred interpretation of traditional schools.

For example: Imagine if you take a misreading of Mind Only Pure Land & Humanistic Buddhism statements to say that Amida & the Pure Land are only figments of one's imagination as a foundational doctrinal principle. Then you couple that principle with a standpoint on practice that borrows the Shin views on the absolute futility of Self Power practices, not requiring any sort of cultivation, precepts, or anything else. You now have people that are telling themselves that they are Buddhas, that there is no one that can help, that there is no liberation, and that there is not a single thing they have to do - worse yet, that there is not a single thing that they can do. This scenario seems much worse than the worst-case-scenario stemming from a misreading of Hongaku thought, don't you think?
Ouch. I think you just gave me a headache. :stirthepot:

My reading of Humanistic Buddhism seems that it keeps clearly with traditional Chinese Pure Land practices although it differs in interpretation. Humanistic Buddhism only works within the context of precepts and cultivation. This is why devout practitioners of it are clearly expected to eat a vegetarian diet and refrain from alcohol and other intoxicants - not to say the inclusion of the supportive nienfo recitation for those on their deathbeds. So the English liturgy I picked up at Amida Society today (along with some other books and a very nice Nienfo scroll) which tends to be more traditionalist is pretty consistent with the liturgy which is used at the Nienfo hall at Hsi Lai Temple (which is part of Fo Guang Shan and is explicitly Humanistic Buddhism). All of these liturgies contain the Lay Precepts (Hsi Lai even offers Lay Precept retreats where you temporarily take even stricter vows). The folks that I have seen at Amida Society I have also seen at Hsi Lai (and Dharma Seal for that matter).

On rebirth both Humanistic and regular Chinese/Taiwanese Pure Land teaches it in both "literal" and moment by moment emphasis, although the Shifus always told us if something does not resonate for us now, just set it aside and come back to it later as our understandings will grow and change. I never understood completely denying "literal" rebirth without evidence to support that assertion.

My own practice kind of moved from more Shin (and influenced by Higashi modernism) to more Chinese Pure Land over time (somewhere between traditional and Humanistic) because it seemed to fit my temperament better. But not because there are any "deficiencies" with Shin - it's teachings are quite profound. There is consideration of the whole Self-Effort/Other-Effort issue as well especially in light of anatman.

Amituofo!
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

I think I was a bit fatigued making my earlier post after reading so much for the Higashi Honganji material and I didn't really make all the points I wanted to make in the final section. Of course everyone's going to have their own interpretations of the Pure Land, because everyone's got different experiences and is at a different spot in life. Of course everyone's going to read the writings of different masters & schools and take different inspiration from them, so mixing & matching is not all bad.

The thing is, it's important to be honest and say "this is my interpretation". The luminaries of Higashi Honganji were all very honest, each one shared what they got from the teachings based on their own experience, Kiyozawa especially. Their findings were based on intense introspection. It wasn't a matter of "hey, I like this theory from over here and this other theory matches my materialist mindset, so let's go with that, and hey, while we're at it, we're going to say that this is the official traditional stance."

Worse still is putting words in the mouths of masters who aren't around to defend themselves. John P from nembutsu.info actually has a bit of a bad habit of this, it's one of the few things I really dislike about the Muryoko Journal, otherwise it's a great resource. <-- This statement likely stems from a pretty egregious error on my part so please do take it as authoritative in any way. Taking an interpretation you're fond of and grafting it back onto the founder of a doctrine just because you feel that they would've agreed is blatantly dishonest. All of these schools (Nishi Honganji, Chinzei Jodo Shu, etc) have official doctrines that they promote. If you don't know what they are, you can contact them directly or take an official course.

It's not that I really have a beef with modernism. It's fine if you have your own take on the teachings. Heck knows I haven't always towed the party line all the time. I just think it's important to represent yourself and the masters as honestly as possible, and not bully people who can very plainly see that a particular interpretation does not come from a master that it's being purported to be coming from.
dsaly1969 wrote:My reading of Humanistic Buddhism seems that it keeps clearly with traditional Chinese Pure Land practices although it differs in interpretation. Humanistic Buddhism only works within the context of precepts and cultivation. This is why devout practitioners of it are clearly expected to eat a vegetarian diet and refrain from alcohol and other intoxicants - not to say the inclusion of the supportive nienfo recitation for those on their deathbeds.
It's interesting how it works together even with the different interpretation. Humanistic Buddhism sometimes just seems like traditional Buddhism, with a bit more emphasis on charitable functions & helping people with material needs - rather than a total departure from traditional Buddhism.
dsaly1969 wrote:So the English liturgy I picked up at Amida Society today (along with some other books and a very nice Nienfo scroll) which tends to be more traditionalist is pretty consistent with the liturgy which is used at the Nienfo hall at Hsi Lai Temple (which is part of Fo Guang Shan and is explicitly Humanistic Buddhism). All of these liturgies contain the Lay Precepts (Hsi Lai even offers Lay Precept retreats where you temporarily take even stricter vows). The folks that I have seen at Amida Society I have also seen at Hsi Lai (and Dharma Seal for that matter).
Awesome! How'd you like it? The chanting book I got from the Amitabha Society here is titled "The Pure Land Recitation Handbook AND National Grand Master Chung Fung Amitabha Buddha Thrice Yearning and Chanting Service" - not sure if it's different from the one used by Ven Chin Kung's other groups. I was able to download a copy of the Fo Guang Shan liturgy from Ven Hui Feng a while back. I have a third one from budaedu.org that is very similar to the Amitabha Society liturgy, just larger with a slightly different order. I really wish I could speak/pronounce Chinese. I'll probably try to hit Amitabha Society one time before the end of the year, if possible.
dsaly1969
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by dsaly1969 »

PorkChop wrote:interesting how it works together even with the different interpretation. Humanistic Buddhism sometimes just seems like traditional Buddhism, with a bit more emphasis on charitable functions & helping people with material needs - rather than a total departure from traditional Buddhism.

Awesome! How'd you like it? The chanting book I got from the Amitabha Society here is titled "The Pure Land Recitation Handbook AND National Grand Master Chung Fung Amitabha Buddha Thrice Yearning and Chanting Service" - not sure if it's different from the one used by Ven Chin Kung's other groups. I was able to download a copy of the Fo Guang Shan liturgy from Ven Hui Feng a while back. I have a third one from budaedu.org that is very similar to the Amitabha Society liturgy, just larger with a slightly different order. I really wish I could speak/pronounce Chinese. I'll probably try to hit Amitabha Society one time before the end of the year, if possible.
The Shifus explained to me that Humanistic Buddhism was intended as a revitalization movement as it was felt that at that time in China and Taiwan there was far too much emphasis on ancestral veneration, etc. and less emphasis on living out the Bodhisattva Vows in the world. So yes, I would absolutely agree that there is no change in traditional practice just a change in focus and emphasis. What is nice about the Chinese/Taiwanese Buddhist population out here in the Los Angeles area is how relatively "nonsectarian" they are as folks float freely from temple to temple depending on events, classes, schedules, etc. Each temple tends to specialize in some area: Dharma Seal has an excellent and active Buddhist youth program, Amida Society has the focus on Pure Land practice and educational outreach in Chinese and English (maybe in other languages as well), and Hsi Lai has a very good English outreach effort with classes, programs and retreats. With my schedule it was much easier to interact with how the Chinese temples function as I cannot commit to weekly Sunday attendance which was often required in Japanese schools as they adopted the church format here in California.

I like the liturgy I got (I'm at a different computer so I do not remember the title) but it is in English and suitable for daily or weekly practice at home , including the Amitabha Sutra recitation portion and gives a very brief overview of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism. I have decided to use it weekly myself and use the Ten-Recitation Method on the other days to incorporate Ninefo into my daily life. I also have practice books in Chinese/pidgin for the temples I frequent as I can do basic pronunciations (go to the Chanting Hall a few times for Nienfo and Sutra recitation and you will catch on).
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

The L.A. scene sounds awesome. That's great that they're nonsectarian and that the Humanist Buddhism movements are still keeping traditional Dharma teachings.

Around me, the Amitabha Society group only chants in Chinese and/or Vietnamese. The Chinese members chant in Chinese, the Vietnamese members in Vietnamese, the two languages are similar enough that they are still able to follow the same basic rhythm. The liturgy book has English translations and alphabetic pronunciation of the Chinese - but nobody chants any of the English and the letters used for the Chinese pronunciation aren't always accurate, so it's very easy to get lost. This was especially bad when chanting the Ksitigarbha Sutra. I was completely lost and couldn't chant after a certain point. That's why they gave me the chanting book to take home, but the few times I've tried to teach myself at home haven't really gone any better. At lunch they broadcast Ven Chin Kung's teachings in Chinese, with Chinese subtitles. All that being said, the group of people were extremely nice & welcoming, and BOY do they practice hard!

The Dharma Jewel Monastery (Linji Chan - Chung Tai Lineage) is a bit better. Their meditation classes are in English and they actually have English chants with Chinese rhythms. Their version of the Heart Sutra is amazing. It was taking me 2 hours to get there after work on Thursdays in rush hour and I wasn't getting home till after 9pm, which is just too late with my kids at home.

Practicing on my own, well I try to keep it pretty simple - usually just bows in front of the shrine for refuge, repentance, aspirations, and dedicating merit. I'll recite the Amitabha Sutra - my own mix in English made up of my favorite parts of various translations (mainly Rulu, Luis O Gomez, and BDK), with various tweaks here and there. Oh and of course Buddha Name recitation, which I try to do in front of the shrine, before every meal, whenever I take the stairs, and whenever else I can throughout the day. On weekends I try to follow along with the Jodo Shu Dharma Services that Rev Kosen Ishikawa broadcasts on youtube. Used to like to sing/chant the Shoshinge & the Nembutsu Wasan, but I've been finding myself drifting away from Shin lately.

This brings up another related point (hope this isn't spinning things offtopic):
Over time, as I get deeper into the practice, I find my views change. Sometimes, it's a simple vacillating - going back and forth between a couple specific views. Over long periods, I can definitely notice a trend, or an evolution, especially if I go back and read some of my posts from a few years back. Does anybody else notice this with their own views?
User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by 明安 Myoan »

One "modernist" teaching I've run into a lot is the idea that saying nembutsu many times or constantly a day is unnecessary.
This is most frequent in some Shin books I've read. But I haven't seen this borne out in my readings of Shinran's writings. I haven't read too much of Rennyo, however.
Namu Amida Butsu
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

In Letter 7 of Fascicle 2 of Rennyo's letters (OFumi), he makes this statement:
BDK Tannisho & OFumi pps 69 & 70 wrote:Through faith alone, singleheartedly and steadfastly relying on the Tathāgata,
we will be born without any difficulty at all in the Land of Utmost Bliss.
This settled mind—how readily we understand it! And the Pure Land—how
easily we go there! Hence the Larger Sutra teaches: “Going is easy, and yet
no one is [born] there” (Daimuryōjukyō, T.12:274b). This passage means
that when we realize the settled mind and rely steadfastly on Amida, it is
easy to go to the Pure Land; but because those who receive faith are rare,
although it is easy to go to the Pure Land, no one is [born] there.

Once we have reached this understanding, the Name we say day and night,
morning and evening,
is solely an expression of gratitude for the benevolence
of the universal vow of great compassion. Deeply mindful of the Buddha-
Dharma and knowing the significance of faith, which is readily received, we
will unfailingly attain the birth that is to come in the fulfilled land, which is
the matter of greatest importance.

Respectfully.
A fair copy, made on the third day
of the third month, Bunmei 6 (1474).
Also in Letter 8 of Fascicle 2 of Rennyo's letters, in the Q&A section is the following passage:
BDK Tannisho & OFumi pps 70 & 71 wrote:[Question:] When we think of receiving faith and going to Amida’s fulfilled
land, what should our attitude be, and what should we understand about
the way we receive this faith? I would like to hear about this in detail.

[Answer:] The meaning of other-power faith as taught by Master Shinran
in our tradition is that when we simply realize that we are wretched beings
of deep evil karma, entrust ourselves singleheartedly and steadfastly to Amida
Tathāgata, discard the sundry practices, and devote ourselves to “the single
practice and singlemindedness,” we will be received without fail within
[Amida’s] all-pervading light. This is indeed how birth [in the Pure Land]
is decisively settled.

Above and beyond this, what we must bear in mind is that, once birth is
assured through the one thought-moment of faith in which we singleheartedly
and steadfastly take refuge in Amida, the Name that we say walking,
standing, sitting, and lying down is the nenbutsu of gratitude [said in] return
for the benevolence of Amida Tathāgata’s great compassion in readily settling
our birth.
This you should know. In other words, this is [the frame of
mind of] a person who is decisively settled in our tradition’s faith.

Respectfully.
The middle of the third month, Bunmei 6 (1474)
In Letter 9 of fascicle 2 Rennyo says:
BDK Tannisho & OFumi pps 71 & 72 wrote:Since the substance of practice, “namu-amida-butsu,” encompasses all
the kami, buddhas, and bodhisattvas and, besides these, each and every one
of the myriad good deeds and practices, what could be lacking that would
necessitate our putting our minds to the various practices and good deeds?
The Name “namu-amida-butsu” completely embodies all the myriad good
deeds and practices; hence it is surely trustworthy.


Then how do we rely on Amida Tathāgata and how do we entrust ourselves
and attain birth in the Land of Utmost Bliss?
There is no need for effort on our part; when we just realize deeply that
Amida Tathāgata himself graciously made the Vow to save those of us who,
as wretched beings burdened with the most deeply rooted evil, can only go
to hell, and when faith is awakened in the one thought-moment of taking
refuge, then—surely prompted by the unfolding of past good as well—otherpower
faith is granted through the wisdom of the Buddha. Consequently, the
Buddha’s mind and the mind of the ordinary being become one; the person
who has attained such a state of mind is called a practitioner who has attained
faith. Beyond this, we must bear in mind that, simply by saying the nenbutsu,
sleeping or waking, no matter where or when, we should express our gratitude
for the benevolence of the universal vow of great compassion.


Respectfully.
Written on the seventeenth day
of the third month, Bunmei 6 (1474).
In Letter 10 of fascicle 2:
BDK Tannisho & OFumi pg 73 wrote:How, then, do we respond to the gracious, inestimable benevolence of
Amida’s great compassion? [The answer is that] by simply repeating the
nenbutsu, saying the Name of the Buddha—day and night, morning and
evening—we express our gratitude for Amida Tathāgata’s benevolence.
Bear
in mind that this is what is meant by the teaching of “completing the cause
[of birth] in ordinary life, with the awakening of the one thought-moment
[of entrusting],” as set forth in our tradition. Therefore, in relying singleheartedly
on Amida in this way, there is no need for special effort on our
part. As it is easy to receive faith, it is easier still to become a buddha—to
be born in the Land of Utmost Bliss. How precious Amida’s Primal Vow is!
How precious other-power faith is! There is no doubt at all as to our birth.
In Letter 11 of fascicle 2:
BDK Tannisho & OFumi pps 74 & 75 wrote:The function of a good teacher is just to encourage people to take refuge
in Amida singleheartedly and steadfastly. Therefore a fivefold teaching has
been established [giving the conditions necessary for birth]: first, [the unfolding
of] good from the past; second, [meeting] a good teacher; third, [encountering
Amida’s] light; fourth, [attaining] faith; and, fifth, [saying] the Name
[of the Buddha]. Unless this fivefold teaching is realized, it is evident [in the
received texts] that birth is impossible.
Thus the good teacher is the messenger
who tells us to take refuge in Amida Buddha. Without meeting a good
teacher through the unfolding of good from the past, birth is impossible. Bear
in mind, however, that to abandon Amida, in whom we take refuge, and to
take only the good teacher as essential is a serious error.

Respectfully.
Bunmei 6 (1474), 5.20
These are just 5 examples I picked at pseudo-random.
If you get the pdf of the BDK translation of the Tannisho and Rennyo's Ofumi here and simply do a CTRL-F search for "the Name", you'll see countless examples of Rennyo encouraging people to say the nembutsu with gratitude, non-stop, day or night... Letter 5 in fascicle 2 even includes a warning not to discard the Nenju.

I'm not sure where the "don't recite too much nembutsu, it's Self Power" comes from.
zumacraig
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:02 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by zumacraig »

steveb1 wrote:Yes, that's been said of Dr. Bloom and others you mention. I've never understood the full-blown modernist position myself because it seems to reject the Transcendent - something that even Shakyamuni never did. If the Transcendent isn't real/doesn't exist, then it seems to me that we are forever trapped within samsara with no "escape hatches" at all...
That's the whole point. Not flinching with the answers to our questions. There is no transcendent. To believe so is to believe in an atman…a self/soul. Buddhism is about coming to terms with the fact that we are socially constructed, yet share a common mind that can be changed to create and perpetuate practices that decrease (end) suffering in this world. Part of enlightenment is taking seriously the implications of dependent origination, emptiness, no-self. For me, accepting this has been a hard, yet liberating road to travel. Much better than living in delusion…which most people (Buddhists too) live in.

The Pure Land is this world where suffering can absolutely be decreased. Shinjin is the breaking of delusion. Other Power is our ability to change the systemic suffering in the world for the liberation of all. The Vow is the basic truth pushed into this world by Buddhism that this is a possibility. It's a practice because it's ongoing.

:cheers:
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

zumacraig wrote:There is no transcendent.
This is the Carvaka (annihilationist view), explicitly denied by the Buddha in the Sutras.
zumacraig wrote:To believe so is to believe in an atman…a self/soul.
No it isn't. You're inability to process that there is a path between these 2 extremes you present shows that you do not understand the Middle Path.
zumacraig wrote:Buddhism is about coming to terms with the fact that we are socially constructed, yet share a common mind that can be changed to create and perpetuate practices that decrease (end) suffering in this world.
There is no "common mind" in Buddhism, even Mahayana Buddhism. This is an Advaita Vedanta view, not Buddhism.
zumacraig wrote:Part of enlightenment is taking seriously the implications of dependent origination, emptiness, no-self.
Probably the only Buddhist thing you've said so far.
zumacraig wrote:For me, accepting this has been a hard, yet liberating road to travel. Much better than living in delusion…which most people (Buddhists too) live in.
Only Buddhas are free from delusion. Sorry, but you haven't made it yet.
zumacraig wrote:The Pure Land is this world where suffering can absolutely be decreased.
This is a view in some forms of Mahayana Buddhism, it is not the view of Jodo Shin Shu.
zumacraig wrote:Shinjin is the breaking of delusion.
Again wrong, Shinjin is the absolute acceptance that we are nothing but beings filled with delusions.
zumacraig wrote:Other Power is our ability to change the systemic suffering in the world for the liberation of all.
So far off base of any legitimate Shin doctrine (or any Other Power school - such as Jodo Shu or the Chinese schools that follow Shan-Tao) that it's hard to even comment. This is decidedly not "Other Power" - this is precisely the doctrine of Self Power. "Other Power" means accepting the fact that we are not the ones that change it.
zumacraig wrote:The Vow is the basic truth pushed into this world by Buddhism that this is a possibility.
The Vow may be a representation of Absolute Truth, but Absolute Truth cannot be expressed in words.
zumacraig wrote:It's a practice because it's ongoing.
...and yet we say that Amida fulfilled his vows long ago...


Listen, I don't like being painted as the dogmatic guy, but this subforum is not for people to just assert any old view and say that it's what Pure Land really teaches, especially not if that view is just Advaita Vedanta in Pure Land clothing. When you reply to someone else's post and attempt to guide them or teach them, it's important to know what you're talking about. You keep using Pure Land terms in such ways that are so different than what they mean in a legitimate Pure Land context, that people are going to get confused. It sounds like you're fairly confused yourself. If you want to promote a "Pure Land in this world" type doctrine, as typical of Humanist Buddhism and some other Chan sects, that's fine, but don't proceed to lecture a Shin follower on what they should or should not believe and how they should practice. In fact, the first thing I'd tell you if you were going to attempt to guide others or start trying to teach is to learn more, because in those quotes above you demonstrate some pretty shoddy understanding of Buddhism. If you don't want to study traditional Buddhism, I guess that's fine too - as long as you restrict your posts to the Open Dharma subforum. Here, posting like you did above is disruptive - in fact it explicitly violates the Dharma Wheel Terms of Service.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Buddhism is about coming to terms with the fact that we are socially constructed, yet share a common mind that can be changed to create and perpetuate practices that decrease (end) suffering in this world.
I think that this is not compatible with the 1st Noble Truth. However I'm not sure how much the 1st Noble Truth is emphasized in Pure Land, so I may be off base pointing that out in this forum.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

The first Noble Truth is big in Pure Land, even if it isn't always pointed out. Anytime a Pure Land writer uses the term "salvation", the original Chinese is actually referring to "liberation from the suffering of Samsara".
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by steveb1 »

zumacraig wrote in regard to Buddhism, "There is no transcendent."

Others have helpfully and successfully corrected zuma on this point, and I can only add that the Buddha himself insisted on a reality transcendent to samsara, one which although impersonal, paradoxically shares some parallels with the Godhead concept in the West:

= = = = = = = = = =

… Two meanings [of the word “God”] must be distinguished for its place in Buddhism to be understood. One meaning of God is that of a personal being who created the universe by deliberate design and periodically intervenes in its natural causal processes. Defined in this sense, nirvana is not God. The Buddha did not consider it personal because personality requires definition, which nivrana excludes... If absence of a personal Creator-God is atheism, Buddhism is atheistic.

There is a second meaning of God, however, which (to distinguish it from the first) has been called the Godhead. The idea of personality is not part of this concept, which appears in mystical traditions throughout the world. When the Buddha declared, 'There is O monks, an Unborn, neither become nor created nor formed. Were there not, there would be no deliverance from the formed, the made, the compounded,' he seemed to be speaking in this tradition. Impressed by similarities between nirvana and the Godhead, Edward Conze has compiled from Buddhist texts a series of attributes that apply to both. We are told that

“Nirvana is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecome, that it is power, bliss and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter, and the place of unassailable safety; that it is the real Truth and the supreme Reality; that it is the Good, the supreme goal and the one and only consummation of our life, the eternal, hidden and incomprehensible Peace.”

We may conclude with Conze that nirvana is not God defined as a personal creator, but that it stands sufficiently close to the concept of God as Godhead to warrant the linkage in that sense.


(Buddhism: a Concise Introduction. Huston Smith and Philip Novak. Harper, San Francisco: 2003, pp. 53-54)

= = = = = = = = = =

For Shin practicers, Amida Buddha, although not a deity or a Creator or an intervener, is the functional equivalent of the Godhead, but only in the limited sense connoted in the citation. Amida is the Buddhist Transcendent, permanent, deathless, unborn, unconditioned, unbecome...power, bliss, happiness, secure refuge and shelter. I'm sorry, but zumacraig could not be more mistaken in claiming that Buddhism is lacking a concept of - and the experience of - the transcendent.
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Modernist Pure Land teachings

Post by Admin_PC »

*Mod note: Removed post(s) from another duplicate account.
Post Reply

Return to “Pure Land”