Pure Land Teaching Research Articles

The Apologetic Discourse towards the Convergence between Pure Land Buddhism and Theoretical Physics of the Contemporary Chinese Buddhist Monk, Da An (1959- )

This article explores the apologetic discourse towards the convergence between Pure Land Buddhism and theoretical physics of the contemporary Chinese Buddhist monk, Da An (1959- ). Faced with the formidable challenge posed by contemporary science towards public acceptance of Buddhism, Da An endeavors to employ science as a medium for propagating Pure Land teachings, seeking to accommodate the preferences of scientifically inclined individuals. He utilizes several theoretical physics concepts to validate that certain ostensibly miraculous accounts within Pure Land Buddhist texts are not incompatible with contemporary science. Further, he asserts that certain supernatural narratives therein indicate that some physical principles still residing in theoretical conjectures on Earth have already been validated and can be utilized at will by the celestial beings in Sukhāvatī, thus asserting the supremacy of Pure Land teachings over science. The article endeavors to examine the contemporary dialogue between Pure Land Buddhism and science, which has been overlooked in the current research realm of the interaction between Buddhism and science.

An Encounter Between Engaged Pure-Land Buddhism and the Dialogical Philosophy of Martin Buber

Abstract Engaged Buddhism emphasizes the translation of dharma teachings into social engagement. A proper understanding of Buddhadharma rejects the duality between the realm of the individual and the realm of the social. Therefore, a dharma that does not create a dharmic society will not create dharmic individuals. Martin Buber (1878–1965) was one of the most important and consequential philosophers of 20th-century spiritual thought. The Dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber represents a creative confluence between Western Humanism and some aspects of Zen Buddhism. Buber translated and studied Taoist texts and “oriental” wisdom systems, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. This article argues that Buber’s concept of “God as the between of I and Thou” can be posed in Buddhist terms as “Buddha is the between of I and Thou.” This primordial social spirituality resembles in many respects the teachings of engaged Buddhism, particularly the Pure Land teachings of Master Sheng Yen.

The influence of Pure Land thought on Zhiyi’s 智顗 (538–598) religious practice and teachings perspective

ABSTRACT Zhiyi was one of the greatest Chinese Buddhist masters of his time. Pure Land greatly influenced his thoughts during his lifetime. This article examines Pure Land thought’s influence on him from several perspectives. Firstly, Zhiyi’s annotations on Pure Land scriptures, such as the Foshuo Amituo jing 佛說阿彌陀經 [Skt. Amitābha Sūtra) and Guan Wulingshou jing 觀無量壽經 [Skt. Amitāyur Dhyāna Sūtra; Contemplation Sūtra], demonstrate his understanding of the teachings. Secondly, Zhiyi stressed the importance of incorporating Pure Land thought into Tiantai 天台 practice. Thirdly, Zhiyi included elements associated with the Western Pure Land in his meditation practice. Lastly, Zhiyi said in his dying statement that he wanted to be reborn in Amitābha’s Pure Land. In this wish, he expresses his conviction that the Pure Land teaching is the ultimate goal of a Buddhist. Therefore, it is evident that Zhiyi’s religious beliefs, meditation and final destination in life were profoundly influenced by Pure Land thought.

Shitennō-ji and Pure Land Teachings in Nara

This paper examines the connection between Shitennō-ji and the Pure Land teachings in Nara. During the Insei 院政 era, or the period of rule by the cloistered emperors (1086–1192), the practice of chanting the nenbutsu one million times at Shitennō-ji, primarily at the West Gate, was popular. Around the same time, in the 12th century, the Pure Land teachings, starting with Eikan (永観, 1033–1111), became influential in Nara. Eikan and Chinkai (珍海, 1091–1152) were also both affiliated with the Pure Land teachings at Shitennō-ji, while Eikan’s Ōjō jūin (往生拾因, The Ten Conditions for Attaining Birth in the Pure Land) especially provided a theoretical background for the nenbutsu practice at the West Gate and the rationale for the one-hundred-day nenbutsu practice at Gankō-ji, and encouraged the spread of yūzū nenbutsu 融通念仏, which mobilized numerous people.

宮澤賢治『二十六夜』再読 ―浄土教から法華世界への結節と「月天子」―

宮澤賢治『二十六夜』再読 ―浄土教から法華世界への結節と「月天子」―

明遍浄土教と弁長の浄土教学

明遍浄土教と弁長の浄土教学

『安楽集』の「勧信求往」について

This paper examines a main theme of Daochuo’s 道綽 Pure Land thought as he defines it in the beginning of the Anle ji 安楽集, in which he encourages people to seek faith in the Pure Land path by saying “calling for faith to attain birth in the Pure Land” (quanxin qiuwang 勧信求住). In order to clarify the meaning of this passage essential for understanding the Anle ji, in this paper, I examine Daochuo’s use of the words quan and xin in the text. In the text of the Anle ji, the word xin is always used to call for faith in the Pure Land teaching. This clearly shows that the most significant idea of the teaching of the Anle ji is to guide people to enter the path of the Pure Land teaching. Therefore, the Anle ji is not simply a scholarly commentary summarizing the teaching of the Guan Wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経. It is rather a book written in evangelical enthusiasm with strong missionary motivation to propagate Pure Land Buddhism.

Icons and Iconoclasm in Japanese Buddhism: Kūkai and Dōgen on the Art of Enlightenment by Pamela D. Winfield (review)

Reviewed by: Icons and Iconoclasm in Japanese Buddhism: Kūkai and Dōgen on the Art of Enlightenment by Pamela D. Winfield Fabio Rambelli (bio) Icons and Iconoclasm in Japanese Buddhism: Kūkai and Dōgen on the Art of Enlightenment. By Pamela D. Winfield. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013. xx, 207 pages. £70.00, cloth; £18.99, paper. Generally speaking, one could argue that mainstream Japanese Buddhism is constituted, at least since the fourteenth century, by a triangulation of [End Page 480] Esoteric Buddhism, Zen, and Pure Land Buddhism. Each of these traditions has its own distinctive doctrinal discourse, vocabulary, ritual system, and soteriology; they also developed different visual cultures and systems of objects. Of course, these three traditions are not monolithic and separate entities: we can observe both important overlaps among them and significant differences within each tradition. Examples of overlaps include Esoteric (mikkyō) interpretations of Pure Land teachings (as in so-called “secret nenbutsu” or himitsu nenbutsu) and Shingon and Tendai adoptions of Zen vocabulary. The latter especially concern sudden enlightenment but also Pure Land adoptions of Esoteric ideas in heterodoxical sects (variously called ichinengi, hijibōmon, and ianjin) and mainstream Zen acceptance of Esoteric Buddhist ritual formulas (mantras and dhāraṇῑ). Examples of internal differences include the division of each tradition into several competing denominations: Esoteric Buddhism into Shingon and Tendai, Zen into Sōto and Rinzai, and Pure Land into Yūzū Nenbutsu, Jōdo, Jōdo Shinshū, and Jishū—each further divided into subsects separated by doctrinal and ritual differences. To further complicate the picture, this triangulation is enriched by interaction with other Buddhist traditions, both older (as in the so-called six Nara schools) and more recent (as in Buddhist “new religions”), as well as non-Buddhist religions and intellectual discourses (Confucianism, Shintō, Christianity, modern science, etc.). This situation makes it exceedingly difficult to talk about “Japanese Buddhism” in a unified and coherent way. As a result, scholars in Japan and elsewhere have chosen not to discuss Japanese Buddhism in general but to focus instead on specific denominations, with the assumption that their denomination of choice is representative of Japanese Buddhism as a whole. For the past 30 years or so, such a sectarian approach to Japanese Buddhism has been supplanted by studies of each of these three large traditions (Esoteric Buddhism, Zen, and Pure Land) in their ramifications, but comparative studies across the triangulation are virtually nonexistent. The rare studies of more general scope avoid systematic, in-depth comparisons across these three traditions in favor of presenting separate instances of similar phenomena within them. Another factor that complicates the study of Buddhism as a general cultural system is the structure and division of academic disciplines. Buddhist studies traditionally works on texts, not on images and related rituals, whereas visual culture is traditionally the province of art history, which studies visual objects without much reference to their doctrinal and ritual contexts. While this description of the field may sound more like a caricature today, authors and works trying to bridge successfully the visual, the textual, and the ritual are still a minority. This new book by Pamela Winfield is an ambitious and successful attempt to cross the divide between two of these three traditions, namely, Esoteric Buddhism and Zen (the Pure Land tradition is never mentioned [End Page 481] in the book). This choice is not unjustified: Esoteric Buddhism and Zen do look like polar opposites in terms of doctrines, practices, and attitudes concerning visual matters, with the former emphasizing the proliferation of teachings, rituals, and images and the latter aiming at radical simplification. Winfield focuses her analysis on visual culture—more precisely, on the doctrines and rituals about sacred images (“icons”) as well as on relativizing attitudes about them (“iconoclasm”). In this way, Winfield is able to show how broader philosophical themes (ontology, space, time, semiotics, etc.) contribute to the formation of specific modes to deal with sacred images and how they together constitute discourses about salvation peculiar to Esoteric Buddhism and Zen. As one can imagine, this book tackles a vast and complex material, so the author chose to limit its scope by focusing on the thought of the two founders...

The Pure Land of the One Mind in Wŏnhyo’s Thought

Pure Land teaching, being the practical Buddhism of East Asia, aims to maximize the possibility that all living beings might be reborn in the Pure Land. The Silla monk Wŏnhyo saw that the accomplishment of these kinds of aspirations was the consummation of the bodhisattva path of the Mahāyāna and said that he sought to firmly construct a view of this kind of pure land on the basis of his thought on the one mind. In this way Wŏnhyo made the “pure land of the one mind” function as the source of the liberation of living beings in the process of resolving such things as the issue of the scope and method of rebirth in the Pure Land and the problem of the existence and true character of the Pure Land. Thus the distinctive feature of Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land thought lies in the positive explanation of the basis of rebirth of all living beings in the Pure Land on the foundation of the one mind. This position is clearly differentiated from the more or less negative attitude of the Pure Land thinkers Tanluan and Daochuo; in other words, an approach that either emphasizes only the quick attainment of buddhahood after distinguishing between a difficult path and an easy path or putting in place a temporal or timely path of practice that corresponds to the period of the decline of the Buddhadharma. Furthermore, Wŏnhyo’s doctrinal learning of the Pure Land is set on the basis of the one mind, which means that the two aspects of the mind of great compassion, or the tainted nature of the pure land of true thusness, and the tathāgatagarbha, or the untainted nature of defiled lands, are interfused by means of the one mind. It does not mean a pure land of mind-only, in which a pure land exists only within the mind. Rather, it was Wŏnhyo’s conviction that all pure lands combining one’s own gratification land and the gratification lands of others are actual worlds that exist in a concrete manner, and that all living beings could be reborn in the actually-existing Pure Land of Extreme Bliss due to the buddha’s mind of great compassion and the tathāgatagarbha of ordinary beings. Through him, a pure land based on the one mind became the source of liberation for all living beings.

The Otherworldly Counter-Discourse of Yŏmbul pogwŏnmun : An Eighteenth-century Pure Land Text

Although Pure Land Buddhism had been known in Korea for more than a millennium, the repeated publication throughout the eighteenth century of woodblock editions of Yŏmbul pogwŏnmun (Exhortation to universally practice the invocation of the Buddha [Amitābha]) with text in both hanmun and the vernacular, presented a quantum leap in the dissemination of Pure Land teachings and of a Buddhist vision of life and the afterlife that in several ways challenged the Confucian Weltanschauung . Although the text endorsed Confucian social values, it effectively constituted a counter-discourse to Confucianism by denying the importance of this world and by emphasizing preparations for the afterlife, which would determine whether after death one would proceed to one of the terrifying hells or to the World of Ultimate Bliss. This otherworldly orientation to the hereafter, with its contrast between hell and the paradise of Amitābha, may have facilitated the acceptance of Catholicism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, particularly among women. Yŏmbul pogwŏnmun encouraged a literal belief in rebirth in the paradise of Amitābha, but the Sŏn masters who propagated the mindful invocation of Amitābha ( yŏmbul ) tended to have a more sophisticated concept of the practice, regarding it as a way to realize one’s buddha-nature in the here and now.

『立正安国論』における浄土教批判と法華最勝義について

[in Japanese]

The Awareness of the Natural World in Shinjin : Shinran's Concept of Jinen

attainment of shinjin and truth The primary issue regarding knowledge that Shinran (1173–1263) treats in his writings concerns the commonplace, “natural” presupposition that it is constituted by an ego-subject relating itself to stable objects in the world. From his stance within Buddhist tradition, Shinran identifies the crucial problem as the human tendency toward the reification of both sides of this dichotomy—resulting in an autonomous self and substantial things—with the consequent attachments fueling the afflictions (“blind passions”) of habitual pain and conflict for oneself and others. The focus of Shinran’s treatment of this basic Buddhist concern is the point of engagement with dharma or true reality. In this, he draws into the arena of religious faith the probing scrutiny of lingering attachments to self, even in the dedicated practitioner, that is fundamental to the critical attitude of Mahayana Buddhist tradition. My aim in taking up the issue of truth in my article “Shinran and Heidegger on Truth” in The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science 1 is to suggest a way of reading Shinran that both avoids a common pitfall that Shinran himself cautions against—an engagement with Pure Land teachings that adheres to the subject-object dichotomy of ordinary awareness—and opens up his vision to resonances with contemporary western thought, particularly continental philosophy. This latter concern is not to claim that Shinran adumbrates contemporary thought or is affirmed by resemblances, but rather seeks to cast light on compelling aspects of his thought not often treated in traditional Shin scholastics. There are, therefore, both therapeutic and constructive sides in my attempt to engage Martin Heidegger’s (1889–1976) thought from a perspective rooted in Shinran’s Buddhism. The pitfall in reading Shinran indicated in my article is crystallized in the assumption, prevalent in Western scholarship but also widely seen in Japan, that his Shin Buddhist path centers on a simple faith in the Pure Land teachings, with such faith understood as the subjective acceptance of the truth of doctrinal propositions. In

曇鸞浄土教における仮名思想

曇鸞浄土教における仮名思想

幸西教学と証空教学

幸西教学と証空教学

How did Shoku Define the Way to the Pure Land?

Ojo, which means to be born in the Pure Land after one's death in this world, is a serious issue that has been discussed for a long time. As one of the topics of Buddhist thought, Ojo can be approached from various aspects. Ishii Kyodo, a scholar who tends to discuss Ojo in respect of its manner and value, suggests that Ojo is not only a phenomenon of transition from a world to another, but should be most emphasized in its internal signification.To understand the essence of Pure-land teachings, it is significant to clarify when Ojo happens to us on earth. Does it happen only at the moment of our death? Or might it be realized during our life? Honen, the first patriarch of the Japanese Jodo sect, suggested that Ojo could only be realized through the practices of Shomyo-nenbutsu. His disciple Shoku (1177-1247), who is considered the first patriarch of the Senzan branch of the Jodo sect, also insisted that Nenbutsu-ichigyo (the sole practice of Nenbutsu) was a necessary way to the Pure Land. This paper attempts to compare the Pure-land teachings of the two patriarchs, and then to discuss how Shoku defined the way to the Pure Land.

Jiacai's idea in the Jingtu-lun that the Primal Vow is for Both Ordinary Beings and Saints

The basic intention of the medieval monk Daochuo was the exaltation of Pure Land Buddhism, which lay in an emphasis on sentient beings as the object of salvation. However, Daochuo had to clarify that Pure Land Buddhism did not contradict the principles of Mahayana Buddhism. Therefore, Pure Land Buddhism as Mahayana Buddhism was clarified by speaking of the Saint's birth in Amida's Pure Land. That is, Daochuo established Amida's Pure Land Buddhism as dedicated to ordinary beings in the age of the decay of the Dharma.Jiacai tried to clarify Pure Land Buddhism as for the sake of ordinary beings in his Jingtu-lun. He emphasized that Amida's Pure Land Buddhism is taught with the aim of liberating ordinary beings basing himself on the forty-eighth vow of the Larger Pure Land Scripture and the expression in the Mediatation Sutra “all ordinary beings of future ages.” He expressed this as “the original [vow] is for both ordinary beings and saints together.” In addition, Jiacai clarified that the object of liberation shifted from ordinary people and saints to ordinary people by reorganizing the Anleji. In a word, Jiacai understood the real intention of Daochuo's Pure Land Buddhism as Pure Land teaching for ordinary beings, and expressed it as, “the original [vow] is for both Ordinary Beings and Saints together”.

Johen's Understanding of Honen's Pure Land Teaching

Johen's Understanding of Honen's Pure Land Teaching

Hoshino Genpo's Understanding of Shinran's Pure Land Teaching

Hoshino Genpo's Understanding of Shinran's Pure Land Teaching

ON PURE LAND BUDDHISM AND CH'AN/PURE LAND SYNCRETISM IN MEDIEVAL CHINA

Modern studies of Buddhism and Chinese religion often refer to an indigenous Chinese Pure Land that arose in the medieval period. This school is typically characterized as a distinct tradition with its own teachings and its own line of patriarchs, including T'an-luan (476-542), Tao-ch'o (562-645), and Shantao (613-681). In the Sung, exegetes such as Yung-ming Yen-shou (904-975) are credited with creating a of Pure Land teachings and Ch'an, and the result-Ch'an/Pure Land syncretism-emerged as the dominant form of Buddhist monastic practice from the end of the Sung down through the present day. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.231 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:23:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ON PURE LAND BUDDHISM 331 In this article I argue that there is little evidence of anything resembling an independent or self-conscious Pure Land tradition in medieval China. Pure Land cosmology, soteriology, and ritual were always part-and-parcel of Chinese Buddhism in general and Ch'an monasticism in particular. Accordingly, there was no need for a synthesis of Pure Land and Ch'an. The modern conception of a Chinese Pure Land school with its own patriarchate and teachings, and the associated notion of Ch'an/Pure Land syncretism, are inordinately influenced by historical developments in Japan and the enduring legacy of sectarian polemics in contemporary Japanese scholarship. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.231 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:23:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Further Buddhist Christian Dialogue: A Review Article of Hee Sung Keel's Understanding Shinran: A Dialogical Approach

It was my original intention to write a review of Professor Keel's book. The exceptional quality of the book itself, however, and the issues it raises concerning Shin Buddhism call for a more detailed exploration and discussion. Therefore, this essay is a review article offered in the interests of promoting the dialogue which Professor Keel has so eloquently and capably initiated. With the appearance of Professor Keel's book the development of Shin studies has reached a major milestone. Aspects of Shinran's (1173-1262) life and thought have occasionally been discussed by scholars in the West and by participants in Buddhist-Christian dialogue conferences. In this work we have a detailed analysis of Shinran's thought and the problems and questions that emerge from his interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism and Pure Land teaching. The breadth of Professor Keel's knowledge of Shinran and the depth of his insight into the teaching will carry Buddhist-Christian dialogue into the relatively unexplored area of Shin BuddhistChristian dialogue. Professor Keel underscores the fact that the translation of Shinran's writings into English has significantly advanced Shin studies by making the teachings available to a wider range of inquirers. It also demonstrates the great responsibility shouldered by Shin scholars who have produced these texts. They must respond substantively and positively to the issues raised by Professor Keel. Though he is clearly Christian, he offers a lucid, sensitive, and fair summation of Shinran's religious experience and thought. He has opened the door of dialogue by presenting an interpretation of Shinran which requires a response. He does not take the position that he possesses the truth, nor does he attempt to refute Shinran in favor of Christianity. He does not judge Shinran to be in error, so much as to point to the paradoxes and dilemmas that are implied in his thought. We shall focus on these later.