Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land

[LastLegend]

LastLegend,

"Great faith is as just powerful as wisdom. ... recitation is the practice of prajnaparamita"

The two problems I see with that:

If faith equals wisdom, it is enough to believe in liberation to be liberated, and all those who believe in buddha are in fact buddhas.
If recitation is practising prajnaparamita then there is no point in translating it or studying it, we can all just read the words in Sanskrit.

You are right recitation is not practicing prajnaparamita directly. It's practicing One Appearance Samadhi which will lead to prajnaparamita.

If by wisdom you mean conceptual knowledge of emptiness, then I disagree. If wisdom is defined as understanding itself that is leading to liberation, then conceptual knowledge of emptiness is not wisdom. However, knowledge of emptiness can lead to wisdom. If one has to come back to the conceptual knowledge of emptiness from time to time to remind oneself of non-attachment, then how is that different from the practice of coming back to reciting Buddha. That's still playing with antidote. Liberation is defined by Bodhidharma Wake-Up Sermon as:

To see form but not be corrupted by form or to hear sound but not to be corrupted by sound is liberation. Eyes that aren’t attached to form are the gates of Zen. In short, those who perceive the existence and nature of phenomena and remain unattached are liberated. Those who perceive the external appearance of phenomena are at their mercy. Not to be subject to afflictions is what’s meant by liberation. There’s no other liberation. When you know how to look at form, form doesn’t give rise to mind and mind doesn’t give rise to form. Form and mind are both pure.

[Astus]

This interpretation is a straw man.
No Pure Land school anywhere would recognize this as a valid interpretation of Buddha Name Recitation.
Yet you won't let this straw man go no matter how many times it gets burned down.
Hence no more point in debating.

Let me start with some quotes regarding that straw man first. This is to show the general Chan approach to buddha-remembrance. After all, the topic here is Chan and Pure Land.

"Don’t use a Buddha to worship a Buddha. And don’t use the mind to invoke a Buddha. Buddhas don’t recite sutras. ... If you don’t see your nature, invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good memory; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings-but no buddha. ... All day long they invoke Buddhas and read sutras. But they remain blind to their own divine nature, and they don’t escape the Wheel."
(Bodhidharma: Bloodstream Sermon)

"The sutras say that someone who wholeheartedly invokes the Buddha is sure to be reborn in the Western Paradise. Since is door leads to Buddhahood, why seek liberation in beholding the mind?
If you’re going to invoke the Buddha, you have to do it right. Unless you understand what invoking means, you’ll do it wrong. And if you do it wrong, you’ll never go anywhere. Buddha means awareness, the awareness of body and mind that prevents evil from arising in either. And to invoke means to call to mind, to call constantly to mind the rules of discipline and to follow them with all your might. This is what’s meant by invoking. Invoking has to do with thought and not with language. If you use a trap to catch fish, once you succeed you can forget the trap. And if you use language to find meaning, once you find it you can forget language. To invoke the Buddha’s name you have to understand the Dharma of invoking. If it’s not present in your mind, your mouth chants an empty name. As long as you’re troubled by the three poisons or by thoughts of yourself, your deluded mind will keep you from seeing the Buddha and you’ll only waste your effort. Chanting and invoking are worlds apart, Chanting is done with the mouth. Invoking is done with the mind. And because invoking comes from the mind, it’s called the door to awareness. Chanting is centered in the mouth and appears as sound."
(Bodhidharma: Breakthrough Sermon)

"The deluded person recites the Buddha’s [name] and seeks for rebirth in that other [location], while the enlightened person purifies his mind. Therefore the Buddha said, ‘As the mind is purified, so is the buddha land purified. ... If you recite the Buddha’s [name] and seek rebirth [in the Pure Land] without being enlightened, how will you ever be able to travel such a long road?"
(Huineng: Platform Sutra, ch 3, p 38, 39, BDK edition)

"To strive for the Way of Awakening by moving the mouth thousands or tens of thousands of times is like steering a cart north but intending to go south. It is like putting a square peg in a round hole. Looking over words and phrases but not practising is as worthless as reading a prescription but forgetting to take the medication. Ceaslessly repeating the Buddha’s Name is as worthless as a frog in a spring field, croaking day and night."
(Dogen: Bendowa)

"Is it not the innate self-nature with which you yourself are endowed, standing bright and clear before your eyes? If you have not seen into your own nature it will not be easy for you to see this land. Yet nowadays those who practice the Pure Land teaching recite the name daily a thousand times, ten thousand times, a million times, but not one of them has determined the Great Matter of salvation. Don't they realize that Amida Buddha refused to accept true enlightenment? Still more, don't they realize that one instant of thought is this very Paradise of Salvation?"
...
"But if you are looking for something that will help you attain continuous uninterrupted true meditation and insight into your own nature, then calling the Buddha's name is fine, but you could as well recite the grain-grinding song instead. Do not think you are going to become a Buddha by deliberately discarding the essentials of seeing into your own nature and turning instead to the virtues gained from calling the Buddha's name."
(Hakuin: Orategama Zokushu in "The Zen Master Hakuin: selected Writings" tr P. Yampolsky, p 127, 133)

From the above it is quite clear that the common Chan view of buddha-remembrance is that at best it can be used as an object of focus to generate concentration. At least that's what Hakuin came up with, who otherwise criticised those who mix Chan with Pure Land, like the famous Zhuhong Yunqi. Others just emphasise that one should first and foremost should see the nature of mind or else all practices are just mundane activities. Here is the same sentiment by Xuyun:

"Reciters of the Buddha's name should never cling to that name for it can become as harmful as poison. We now recite the Buddha's name because our habits are deeply rooted from time without beginning and our thoughts cannot be easily stopped. So we use his name as a prop in our striving to wipe out all rising thoughts until they eventually vanish completely and give way to the Pure Land which will then manifest itself. So why should we seek it from outside?"
(source)

As I see it, this kind of Chan approach to buddha-remembrance is contrary to the whole concept of the Pure Land path that aims for birth through the vow of Amitabha. That is why in this thread from the beginning I have been against confusing the two. And if one were to use recitation for training the mind in concentration and cutting off conceptual proliferation, that is neither Chan (seeing nature) nor Pure Land (attaining birth).

[Astus]

Basically I can very easily see a strong Pure Land practice leading to insight in the presence of the right karmic disposition. So at the end of the day, there is just a question of what works better and this will surely depend on many factors, chief of which probably being one's karmic disposition.

Where lies the difference between practitioners of other faiths who focus on a single object and attain various levels of absorptions and Buddhist meditators doing the same? Probably none, and they can both attain birth in specific heavens related to their achievements. Theoretically both types of practitioners could attain insight, however, it is generally believed that only through learning of the Buddha's teachings can one engage in correct contemplation and gain insight into no-self and emptiness.

[Astus]

You are right recitation is not practicing prajnaparamita directly. It's practicing One Appearance Samadhi which will lead to prajnaparamita.

One Act Samadhi is explained in the sutra that has the prerequisite of learning and understanding prajnaparamita teachings. Without that, it is just a devotional practice of recalling a buddha and his virtues.

If by wisdom you mean conceptual knowledge of emptiness, then I disagree. If wisdom is defined as understanding itself that is leading to liberation, then conceptual knowledge of emptiness is not wisdom. However, knowledge of emptiness can lead to wisdom. If one has to come back to the conceptual knowledge of emptiness from time to time to remind oneself of non-attachment, then how is that different from the practice of coming back to reciting Buddha. That's still playing with antidote. Liberation is defined by Bodhidharma Wake-Up Sermon as:

To see form but not be corrupted by form or to hear sound but not to be corrupted by sound is liberation. Eyes that aren’t attached to form are the gates of Zen. In short, those who perceive the existence and nature of phenomena and remain unattached are liberated. Those who perceive the external appearance of phenomena are at their mercy. Not to be subject to afflictions is what’s meant by liberation. There’s no other liberation. When you know how to look at form, form doesn’t give rise to mind and mind doesn’t give rise to form. Form and mind are both pure.

First one needs to hear about the teachings, then understand it, then it can be confirmed in one's experience. Without the first two steps there cannot be the third one.

Afflictions arise from the misconception that there is a substance. Such misconception is eliminated by learning, understanding and confirmation. If one only holds a single object in mind to block the occurrence of afflictions, that can be a temporary state, but once one has to engage in daily activities one reverts to the afflicted mind. In other words, even gods of the highest (dhyana) heavens eventually fall to lower realms. That's why the Chan practice is being aware of everything without attachment, and not being aware of a single thing, attached to that one thing, and barring everything else.

[Admin_PC]

Let me start with some quotes regarding that straw man first. This is to show the general Chan approach to buddha-remembrance. After all, the topic here is Chan and Pure Land.

So you quote one master who practices both, some others that deny the validity of Pure Land, and insist that interpretation is how all schools of Ch'an, let alone Pure Land recognize the practice? Forget the fact that other Chan masters have been quoted for you. Keep up with the polemic.

FYI - This sutra was about those who've mixed practices, that doesn't necessarily mean subsuming Pure Land as an inferior practice. Definitely over the course of the thread the position evolved whether Pure Land teachings (in their own schools) were a practice that could lead one to Awakening. This was demonstrated a long time ago to the satisfaction of the OP.





EDIT:
I can't stop laughing. This quote:

"The sutras say that someone who wholeheartedly invokes the Buddha is sure to be reborn in the Western Paradise. Since is door leads to Buddhahood, why seek liberation in beholding the mind?
If you’re going to invoke the Buddha, you have to do it right. Unless you understand what invoking means, you’ll do it wrong. And if you do it wrong, you’ll never go anywhere. Buddha means awareness, the awareness of body and mind that prevents evil from arising in either. And to invoke means to call to mind, to call constantly to mind the rules of discipline and to follow them with all your might. This is what’s meant by invoking. Invoking has to do with thought and not with language. If you use a trap to catch fish, once you succeed you can forget the trap. And if you use language to find meaning, once you find it you can forget language. To invoke the Buddha’s name you have to understand the Dharma of invoking. If it’s not present in your mind, your mouth chants an empty name. As long as you’re troubled by the three poisons or by thoughts of yourself, your deluded mind will keep you from seeing the Buddha and you’ll only waste your effort. Chanting and invoking are worlds apart, Chanting is done with the mouth. Invoking is done with the mind. And because invoking comes from the mind, it’s called the door to awareness. Chanting is centered in the mouth and appears as sound."
(Bodhidharma: Breakthrough Sermon)

This point refutes your entire argument. Thank you for quoting it. Your misinterpretation is comical.

[Dan74]

Basically I can very easily see a strong Pure Land practice leading to insight in the presence of the right karmic disposition. So at the end of the day, there is just a question of what works better and this will surely depend on many factors, chief of which probably being one's karmic disposition.

Where lies the difference between practitioners of other faiths who focus on a single object and attain various levels of absorptions and Buddhist meditators doing the same? Probably none, and they can both attain birth in specific heavens related to their achievements. Theoretically both types of practitioners could attain insight, however, it is generally believed that only through learning of the Buddha's teachings can one engage in correct contemplation and gain insight into no-self and emptiness.

In Pali canon alone there are many examples of people who were liberated after very brief teachings, Astus. You must surely remember them? Bahiya comes to mind, then there is the lovely sutta quoted above, etc etc

But in other faiths, wrong view might be the obstacle on the way to liberation, whereas Pure Land practitioners are not encumbered by wrong views.

Whether prajnaparamita or any other aspect of the Dharma, they are all pointers, as we know, not the 'thing' itself. So they are not something one needs to 'possess' as a prerequisite. The dharma doors are many!

[plwk]

This is to show the general Chan approach to buddha-remembrance. After all, the topic here is Chan and Pure Land.

Yes Astus, how astute of you in your observations and citations and yet forgetting that the OP is equally open to the dual practice methodology rather than just the perceived divisional barriers between both. And how convenient in forgetting that when deliberating on your pet topic of how niàn fó is done the Chán way, the opposite on Pure Land within the dynamics of a dual practice is neglected and even when mentioned, it's oft made to look inferior or subservient to the former, when it should not be the case. When highlighting on exclusive Chán or Pure Land practice, as how the late Ven Master Dr Shèng Yán and others does it for instance, he simply explains them in their own proper spheres and when talking about the dual practice, a completely different set of dynamics are used.

As I see it, this kind of Chan approach to buddha-remembrance is contrary to the whole concept of the Pure Land path that aims for birth through the vow of Amitabha. That is why in this thread from the beginning I have been against confusing the two.

Generations of practitioners and Masters of the dual method have done it within the spirit of ecumenism and in fact both sides owe a great debt of gratitude for enriching each other's tradition. There's only so much of sectarian fluff that one can choose to keep highlighting on Chán to contrast against Pure Land.

There are other Sutras which lists other ways of attaining or obtaining access to Sukhāvatī via other methods other than Buddhānusmṛti which are not mentioned on nor accepted by the exclusivist / purist gang but since it is buddhavacana and in the Tripitaka, no amount of blindfolding oneself and going yadayada will change the fact that there are what I would term as the 'window of opportunity' for those who lack the affinity of walking through the main door to behold Amitābha & His Sukhāvatī.

Chán & even Tantra are merely other Dharma Doors which have a correlation to the Pure Land on the basis of bodhicitta and Buddhahood. Don't forget that luminaries like Kōgyō-Daishi advocated Amida practice within the framework of Shingon-shū although at the price of an unnecessary complex schism between the Kogi Shingon-shū and Shingi Shingon-shū and its far cousins in the Himalayas have no issues in incorporating Pure Land as well...

And on another note, like so many purists, how many fail to note on how Chán & Pure Land have the essence of the 11 major Chinese Buddhist Schools and in the ecumenical path of combined methodology of Chán & Pure Land, there are bound to be emphasised parts and those which receive less highlight. How is the formula on what is emphasised and what is highlighted less is another topic of its own. Is there such a thing as a Pure Land or Chán teaching that isn't intertwined at some point with the rest? That's why I have always advocated for both exclusive and dual practice to be within the general framework of Buddha Dharma rather than form exclusive clubs which has bred unnecessary and petty sectarianism in Buddhist history and legacy.

And by the way, practitioners of the dual method are expected to be doubly diligent than an exclusive one as there are more dynamics involved when taking in the essence of both. They don't get to cut slack ....

And if one were to use recitation for training the mind in concentration and cutting off conceptual proliferation, that is neither Chan (seeing nature) nor Pure Land (attaining birth).

The Name has limitless facets in itself in its function and Dharma Doors. Limiting oneself to one thing at a time is one's own choice but expecting a Buddha's activities to be limited according to one's own limited understanding is hardly justiciable nor warranted...

And I repeat: the dynamics of a dual methodology are different from that of an exclusive one. Not your cup of tea? That's fine but it's only fair that others be allowed theirs. Kinda like when Je Tsongkhapa composed his magnum opus, Lamrin and Ngagrim Chenmo, it has the essence of all Sutra and Tantra teachings but not down to the last detail and iota of each quoted text but a reasonable amalgamation. And by the way, I am sure you are aware that 念 is hardly limited to 'recitation'...

In the end, in my own estimation, exclusive or dual, is not for you, me nor anyone here nor even the Blessed One to decide but the individual practitioner like the OP to deliberate and act upon in the end.

[Astus]

PorkChop,

There seems to be some gap between what I say and comes through.

"Chanting and invoking are worlds apart, Chanting is done with the mouth. Invoking is done with the mind."

If this refutes what I say then that is not what I say. The question was whether recitation of the name can bring about enlightenment in this life. Recitation is what is called chanting in the Bodhidharma quote. Buddha means "awareness of body and mind that prevents evil from arising in either" and invoking it means "to call constantly to mind the rules of discipline and to follow them with all your might" and "As long as you’re troubled by the three poisons or by thoughts of yourself, your deluded mind will keep you from seeing the Buddha and you’ll only waste your effort." That is a description of the Holy Path, of realising the buddha-mind. Contrary to that, the oral recitation - that is called the easy path what has been emphasised by numerous Pure Land teachers as the essential method - is the chanting.

[Astus]

In Pali canon alone there are many examples of people who were liberated after very brief teachings, Astus. You must surely remember them? Bahiya comes to mind, then there is the lovely sutta quoted above, etc etc

Sure, they did not follow any meditation practices or pursued studies but realised directly from the Buddha's utterance. Usually those were teachings asked as summaries of his Dharma, similarly to what were later called direct instructions and upadeshas. I don't think I have denied that option anywhere.

But in other faiths, wrong view might be the obstacle on the way to liberation, whereas Pure Land practitioners are not encumbered by wrong views.
Whether prajnaparamita or any other aspect of the Dharma, they are all pointers, as we know, not the 'thing' itself. So they are not something one needs to 'possess' as a prerequisite. The dharma doors are many!

Wrong views are what we all have from birth, an even from before that. That's why one needs the teachings. The only question then is whether within the practice of recitation the teachings on non-birth are included or not.

[Dan74]

In Pali canon alone there are many examples of people who were liberated after very brief teachings, Astus. You must surely remember them? Bahiya comes to mind, then there is the lovely sutta quoted above, etc etc

Sure, they did not follow any meditation practices or pursued studies but realised directly from the Buddha's utterance. Usually those were teachings asked as summaries of his Dharma, similarly to what were later called direct instructions and upadeshas. I don't think I have denied that option anywhere.

But in other faiths, wrong view might be the obstacle on the way to liberation, whereas Pure Land practitioners are not encumbered by wrong views.
Whether prajnaparamita or any other aspect of the Dharma, they are all pointers, as we know, not the 'thing' itself. So they are not something one needs to 'possess' as a prerequisite. The dharma doors are many!

Wrong views are what we all have from birth, an even from before that. That's why one needs the teachings.

Exactly!

I thought you were saying that Pure Land Buddhist are unable to reach liberation.

But who is to say whether or not the Pure Landers are getting all the teachings they need from their tradition/practice? Some surely are!

The only question then is whether within the practice of recitation the teachings on non-birth are included or not.

Could you spell this out for me, please?

[Astus]

plwk,

"And how convenient in forgetting that when deliberating on your pet topic of how niàn fó is done the Chán way, the opposite on Pure Land within the dynamics of a dual practice is neglected and even when mentioned, it's oft made to look inferior or subservient to the former, when it should not be the case."

Dual practice either means that one does both nianfo and canchan in separate sessions, or they are practised together either in the form of real-mark buddha-remembrance. or applying phrase investigation and raising the great doubt. Done in separate sessions is fairly universal, as most monastic rituals include name and sutra recitation of Amitabha. Practising with "Who recites?" is the most common form in Chinese Buddhism, while awareness of the real-mark seems rare. If the practice is with the question, then it is no different from kanhuachan. If it is with the real-mark, it is abiding in buddha-mind and no different from wunian. In both cases recitation serves only as the basis upon what is built further practice, thus we arrive at the usual calming and insight formula.

[Admin_PC]

I'm just going to connect some dots, because I'm a bit OCD like that and because just leaving that quote hanging is a little rude...

invoke
verb in·voke \in-ˈvōk\
1
a : to petition for help or support
b : to appeal to or cite as authority
2
: to call forth by incantation : conjure
3
: to make an earnest request for : solicit
4
: to put into effect or operation : implement
5
: bring about, cause

In the earlier quote, it is 2nd definition that applies, which has a verbal component.
The context of that quote is that one's recitation/invocation is useless if one has no mental movement behind the recitation/invocation.
If one does not understand what one is reciting/invoking, then one is merely performing an action with the mouth.

Buddha Name Recitation:
Chinese: 念佛, pinyin: niànfó;
Japanese: 念仏 nembutsu;
Korean: 염불 yeombul;
Vietnamese: niệm Phật
Sanscrit: buddhānusmṛti
All of which mean "mindfulness of the Buddha."

Now your entire straw man rests on this fictional idea that there is a Buddha Recitation that does not involve thinking of that Buddha and the associated narrative. To tell the truth, given the number of quotes I've given to the contrary, it would be up to you to provide any substantial evidence of such a fiction.

The clearest statement I can give regarding burden proof to refute my case is this:
if an understanding is not at all required for Nembutsu/Nianfo (mindfulness of the Buddha) Recitation, then show me a Pure Land tradition that does not give Dharma talks, show me a tradition that does not recommend reading the sutras, show me a tradition where one is given status of a teacher just because they know the syllables to pronounce the name, show me an actual Pure Land tradition that says not to even think of the Buddha when reciting.

Now I doubt you're going to find a single existence of such a school, let alone among the Chinese schools.
But I'll help you by ruling out some candidates.
Let's start with most radical interpretation and bring it back...

"The six mystic characters (na-mu-a-mi-da-butsu) represent the universal absolute Dharma, and all things human and material are nothing but absolute reality. All action free from affliction is the realization of that absolute reality. The person who comes to know this is most excellent.”

I was mistaken before. This is the realization that Ippen received. His earlier statement that I quoted before was given to Hoto Kokushi (aka Kakushin), a Fuke Shu Zen master, so no - as an itinerant hijiri, the Inka given to Ippen by Kakushin was not insignificant. Ippen taught recitation with absolute surrender, that even common faith was useless when it came from a deluded mind. This surrender is consistent with Vasubandhu, who said the singleness of mind (shamatha) comes from the intense wish to see Amida Buddha. This clearly shows some level of mental movement.

Shinran in his teaching emphasized more greatly faith and the all-encompassing other-power (tariki) of Amida. So in certain ways, his teaching has some similarities with Kosai’s “single calling” teaching. Even though Shinran had no objection to any number of recitations, he did emphasize an absolute value in one. He felt that one recitation best expressed the way of salvation which Amida chose as the easiest possible for all persons. From the standpoint of faith, the “single calling” coincides with the moment in which faith arises in the mind and also expresses the deep joy of that faith in Amida Buddha’s wonderful compassion. In such a deeply believing recitation, there is enough karmic merit to bring the person to Birth in the Pure Land. From the time that a person attains this faith, his or her nembutsu repetitions are all prompted by a joyous gratitude toward Amida Buddha for the compassion that has now saved them - they are no longer calls for salvation. The power to bring about this emancipating faith is not on the part of the person but is Amida’s gift. And so one simply focuses on giving deep praise to this compassionate and emancipating power of Amida, while leaving behind all other practices. As a person already fully embraced by Amida, one should go through life expressing this by following basic morality and ethics, and fulfilling one’s duties to family, community and the larger society. Thus, to make a broad generalization, the nembutsu of Honen and the Jodo school represents more the process of establishing of a deep relationship with Amida Buddha, while the nembutsu of Shinran and the Jodo Shin school represents a recognition of that ever present relationship to Amida’s grace. In this way, the Pure Land for Jodo school believers is more of an existential place one goes to after death through establishing a firm relationship with Amida, while the Pure Land for Jodo Shin followers is none other than this world when it is illuminated by Amida’s power. Together, these two notions of nembutsu and Pure Land compliment each other by providing a means to confront both life and death.

The above isn't even written by a Shin school, but it's a beautiful display of how narrative drives recitation/invocation. There's another quote on that link from Shinran himself (from his Lamp for the Latter Ages) that is in the same vein (probably does a better job of stressing the importance of the 1st & 2nd of the 3 minds), but I think this one sums it up nicely. The above paragraph lines up rather well with Bodhidharma's quote even. You still have to know who Amida is, a general idea of what a Buddha is, what emancipation/liberation/salvation is, what compassion is, what the Pure Land is, and why you need all that stuff for any of that to even work. To assert otherwise is just being foolish.

"In China and Japan, many Buddhist masters and scholars understand that the nembutsu is to meditate deeply on Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. However, I do not understand the nembutsu in this way. Reciting the nembutsu does not come from studying and understanding its meaning. There is no other reason or cause by which we can utterly believe in attaining birth in the Pure Land than the nembutsu itself. Reciting the nembutsu and believing in birth in the Pure Land naturally gives rise to the three minds (sanjin) and the four modes of practice (shishu). If I am withholding any deeper knowledge beyond simple recitation of the nembutsu, then may I lose sight of the compassion of Shakyamuni and Amida Buddha and slip through the embrace of Amida's original vow. Even if those who believe in the nembutsu study the teaching which Shakyamuni taught his whole life, they should not put on any airs and should sincerely practice the nembutsu, just as an illiterate fool, a nun or one who is ignorant of Buddhism. I hereby authorize this document with my hand print. The Jodo Shu way of the established mind (anjin) is completely imparted here. I, Genku, have no other teaching than this. In order to prevent misinterpretation after my passing away, I make this final testament." January 23, the Second Year of Kenryaku (1212)

"meditate deeply" = he's referring to the harsh 90 day practice of the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra that requires absolutely no outside thoughts, extremely strict discipline, and 3 months of no sleep while performing walking recitation meditation. This practice was paired down to 7 days on Mt Hiei, but was still beyond the scope of most people. He's also rejecting the idea of exclusively doing visualization exercises on the images described in the Visualization Sutra. Knowledge of the adornments of the Pure Lands come through reading the sutras, he said that combined with thinking of Amida and wishing to be in that land as one recites were enough to see those visualizations (as was pointed out in early quotes from the Senchakushu).

"Reciting the nembutsu does not come from studying and understanding its meaning" = he's saying that nembutsu is recitation and it does not require and understanding the profound meaning, such as "the mind is the Buddha" as found in the Pratyutpanna, "A" being the first letter of "Amida" as well as the seed syllable for the Dharmakaya, etc. Honen knew very well the depth of the Nembutsu:

According the Kanjinryakuyoshu attributed to Genshin, the three Chinese characters of Amida's name correspond to three fundamental truths of Buddhism: voidness, the impermanence of form, and the middle way between the two (Eshin sozu zenshu, 1:329). From this, it was seen that all Buddhist teachings are contained in Amida's name. The Shojukanki, also attributed to Genshin, makes this same point (Eshin sozu zenshu, 1:517). From these examples, we can see how Honen claimed that the six characters of the nembutsu ("Namu Amida Butsu") perfectly contain all the virtue of Amida's inner enlightenment as well as the merit of his outward actions.

"There is no other reason or cause by which we can utterly believe in attaining birth in the Pure Land than the nembutsu itself." This very clearly states that the nembutsu is related to the belief in attaining birth in the Pure Land. This opens up a huge narrative of "who, what, when, where, why" that is required to unpack that statement. All of these associations are brought to mind as one recites, not as random thoughts, but as part and parcel of the Amida narrative.

"...deeper knowledge" he rejects, but still mentions Amida, Shakyamuni, the original Vow, attaining birth in the Pure Land, compassion, 3 minds, 4 modes of practice, etc. He's not talking about having no understanding. We can see very clearly that he's referring to the advanced topics, such as emptiness (for which a conceptual understanding is barely a fraction of the picture), "the mind is Tathagata", "Pure Land is a Pure Mind", etc.

"...they should not put on any airs and should sincerely practice the nembutsu, just as an illiterate fool" means to openly accept the teachings as they have been presented and practice them. It refers to the understanding that more book knowledge outside of the basic narrative is not a replacement for practice.

"The Jodo Shu way of the established mind (anjin) is completely imparted here." - this is the culmination of the 3 minds and 4 modes of practice, which he spent a lot of time teaching about. He said other practices weren't necessary for these things to arise, not that people didn't have to have any idea of what they were. I already listed what these 3 minds and 4 modes of practice are before and will again below. They appear in MANY of his letters to students. In fact these 3 minds are necessary for Pure Land birth according to Shan Tao, Honen upholds this, and Shinran mentions it in the Kyogyoshinsho (it's also inherent in his statement that doubt is what prevents us from being born in the Pure Land).

But a hundred or a thousand repetitions day and night for a hundred or a thousand days can be the nembutsu of salvation by Amida's power alone (tariki), as long as one does it with an entire trust in the merits of the great Vow, looking up in confidence to Amida with every repetition. And so the nembutsu of those who possess the Three Minds (sanjin) can by no means be called the nembutsu of salvation by one's own power - no matter how many times they call upon the sacred name and as long as they are really looking up to Amida and trusting to his saving power alone.

All of these associations from the narrative become part of the recitation.

“If there are sentient beings who desire birth in that land, they must awaken in themselves the three kinds of mind. Then they will be born. What are the three minds? The first is the sincere mind; the second is the profound mind; the third is the mind with which one dedicated all merits (toward one’s birth in the Pure Land) and resolves to be born there. If one possesses these three minds, one will assuredly be born in that land.”

Shan-tao’s commentary on the sutra states: “‘Sincere’ means ‘genuine.’ This expression is intended to make clear that the understanding and practice that all sentient beings carry out through physical, vocal, and mental activities must necessarily be accomplished with a ‘truly genuine’ mind. One should not outwardly manifest the aspects of being wise, good, and diligent while inwardly embracing vanity and falsehood.” There are two forms of genuineness:
1) Benefiting oneself
2) Benefiting others

“The second is the profound mind. The profound mind is the mind of deep faith. It also has two aspects:
1) To believe firmly and deeply that, now in this present body, one is an ordinary sinful being involved in transmigration who has for countless kalpas been always sunk tumbling in the stream of cyclic rebirth, unable to find the karmic conditions for escape.
2) To believe firmly and deeply that Amida’s forty-eight vows enfold sentient beings in their embrace and that those who without doubt or reservation entrust themselves to the power of these vows will certainly attain birth.”

“The third is known as the mind that dedicates [all merits toward one’s birth in the Pure Land] and resolves [to be born there].”

And how does ShanTao recommend awakening these 3 minds? Reciting the Buddha's name... "Our ‘nien-fo’ then becomes our vocal act; the ‘three minds’ become our mental act and our ‘benefiting others’ becomes our physical act. With this as our guide, we become ‘assured’ of our eventual birth in the Pure Land. Amito-fo."

When reciting, one also practices the Six Principles or Paramitas (Skrt) of giving, precept observation, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom. When no other thought is concerned, it is "Giving." When no erroneous thought occurs, it is "Precept observation." When staying with this process without interruption, it is "Patience." When reaching one's goal in recitation, it is "Diligence." When focusing on recitation, it is "Concentration." When insight is obtained from within, it is "Wisdom"

...
I could probably quote the entire second Chapter of Ven Chin Kung's commentary from above, especially:

One is to be mindful of the name "Amitabha," for this name enables one to reflect and intensify the same merits and virtues, thus eventually achieving a Buddha's perfection.

...

The Ten-Recitation method is a simple, convenient effective way to practice Buddha Name Recitation. It is especially suitable for those who find little time in the day for cultivation. Practicing this method helps us to regain mindfulness of Buddha Amitabha and brings us peace and clarity in the present moment.

The OP did a bang up job quoting Hsuan Hua so I'm not going to repeat that effort.

Sheng Yen describes the various levels of recitation and how it evolves naturally through practice. Historically he's always been very Self Power-oriented (to the extent that I remember one of his students quoting him with something like "a real Chan practitioner would never rely on another Buddha") so I wouldn't expect any use of Other Power from him - but even he admits it's a progression.

phpBB [video]

[Astus]

The only question then is whether within the practice of recitation the teachings on non-birth are included or not.

Could you spell this out for me, please?

It is by realising non-birth, i.e. emptiness, that one gains liberation. Normally such attainment is through insight meditation where one contemplates the lack of self in both people and dharmas. If someone only recites the name then it can produce concentration and calm, but somehow one also needs to learn about dependent origination, etc. in order to be able to think about them and investigate their validity in one's present experience.

[LastLegend]

Your contribution regarding Chan Pure Land has merit. However, there are three things here. 1) I still maintain that Buddha recitation is a method that can lead to samadhi without having to learning and understanding prajnaparamita teaching. 2) I want to discuss how Chan works exactly if one is doing the gradual practice because it is still within the conceptual framework. How one is be able to transit from conceptual understanding of the teaching to realization? 3) Chan Masters (i.e., Bodhidharma) wanted students to pursue Chan teaching as sticking to one subject. Their views did not necessarily reflect true teaching of Buddha recitation. What they said was Buddha recitation is not necessary to Chan, and there think there is a lot of confidence in that. Nevertheless, the two can be combined, and that's what people do.

One Act Samadhi is explained in the sutra that has the prerequisite of learning and understanding prajnaparamita teachings. Without that, it is just a devotional practice of recalling a buddha and his virtues.

I think the prerequisite is being exposed to the Sutra, and other prerequisite is one needs to understand the purpose of Buddha recitation is to become Buddha. I don't think one has to really study prajnaparamita teaching. According to prajnaparamita teaching, there is not a dharma be obtained. By trying to reach prajnaparamita through training One Action Samadhi( by focusing one's mind on the dharma realm [inconceivable]), would that not be contradictory? See # 2 above.

First one needs to hear about the teachings, then understand it, then it can be confirmed in one's experience. Without the first two steps there cannot be the third one.

Afflictions arise from the misconception that there is a substance. Such misconception is eliminated by learning, understanding and confirmation. If one only holds a single object in mind to block the occurrence of afflictions, that can be a temporary state, but once one has to engage in daily activities one reverts to the afflicted mind. In other words, even gods of the highest (dhyana) heavens eventually fall to lower realms. That's why the Chan practice is being aware of everything without attachment, and not being aware of a single thing, attached to that one thing, and barring everything else.

Well if the misconception is not eliminated right away, then we still have to come back to apply confirmation again and again. Also being aware of everything without attachment sounds tiring, and I fail to see how that produces wisdom. I don't see how it is different from using Buddha recitation in response to a distraction or attachment in terms of applying antidote to an illness. Honestly, Buddha recitation (in theory and practice) does bring direct wisdom. That's the true. As long as one understands the purpose of Buddha recitation is to become Buddha, and constantly wishes to become Buddha which is answered differently from wishing to become a millionaire. This wish component cannot be undermined.

[Astus]

PorkChop,

The question asked from Bodhidharma is about the point of contemplating mind (觀心) if one can attain liberation through buddha-remembrance (念佛). The entire Breakthrough Sermon is about this single practice of contemplating the mind and throughout the text it is explain how it is enough in itself, how it includes and at the same time surpasses all other practices. What Bodhidharma does with the term buddha-remembrance is simply turning it into the practice of contemplating the mind, just as it is explained for other common terms like the six paramitas, six realms, meritorious actions, three immeasurable aeons, etc. Contemplating the mind itself is the same as seeing nature, the enlightenment of the buddha-mind, the realisation of emptiness.

So, buddha-remembrance is explained in a way that buddha stands for being conscious (覺察) of body and mind and thus not raising any evil (惡), while remembrance is keeping in mind (憶持) and not forgetting (不忘) to observe the precepts. This is related to what is written at the beginning of the text that there are the pure and the impure minds, one is occupied with good (善) and the other with evil (惡). In other words, good is buddha-mind, evil is samsara. That way buddha-remembrance is keeping the buddha-mind. When it says that remembering (念) lies in the mind (心) and not in words (言) he emphasises contemplating mind. And that in order to recall the name (念佛之名) one already has to know the recalling of the way (念佛之道), what is meant is not that one should recite with understanding but that one should have realisation in order to properly remember the buddha. That is because unless the three poisons are removed one cannot see the buddha. He differentiates recitation (誦) and recalling (念), that one is a verbal while the other is a mental act. That is again strengthened by the statement that all the enlightened beings of the past (過去諸聖) practised exclusively mentally (唯只推心) and never verbally (皆非外說), as that would have been grasping at external phenomena.

"Now your entire straw man rests on this fictional idea that there is a Buddha Recitation that does not involve thinking of that Buddha and the associated narrative."

No. It rests in the difference between calming and insight practice.

On the Fukeshu I recommend this essay: Komuso and “Shakuhachi-Zen” - From Historical Legitimation to the Spiritualisation of a Buddhist denomination in the Edo Period

(I will continue my response later)

[LastLegend]

If during recitation, one is be able to hear one's own recitation, that's hearing without distortion. That's practicing Zen because hearing without distortion is Zen.

[Admin_PC]

So, buddha-remembrance is explained in a way that buddha stands for being conscious (覺察) of body and mind and thus not raising any evil (惡), while remembrance is keeping in mind (憶持) and not forgetting (不忘) to observe the precepts.

This is not separate from realizing the 3 Minds.
Keep trying...

No. It rests in the difference between calming and insight practice.

You've made the claim that Recitation falls under the first with absolutely NO PROOF (fyi- the proof for this is very much negating any sort of nen [念] in nembutsu [念佛].) In the same post you made the claim that there is nothing inherently Buddhist about the Pure Land path other than Amida is a Buddha and that one is trying to become a Buddha - also with NO PROOF.

On the Fukeshu I recommend this essay: Komuso and “Shakuhachi-Zen” - From Historical Legitimation to the Spiritualisation of a Buddhist denomination in the Edo Period

Thanks for the link, but Kakushin is still a founder of a Rinzai subsect (thus making Inka more important), along with a solid foundation in Shingon, and had spent time in China... so I hardly see the issue.

Kakushin is well-known for his various interests; he combined esoteric
Shingon 真言 and Zen and he spent some time between 1249 and 1254 in SongChina
where he practiced Zen under the famous master Wumen Huikai 無門慧
開, Jap. Mumon Ekai (1183-1260), who was the compiler of the gong’an / kØancollection
公案 Wumen-guan / Mumon-kan 無門關, “Gateless Passage.” Kakushin is
considered to be the patriarch and founder of the Rinzai sub-denomination HottØ
法燈

[DesertDweller]

The thread has exploded yet again! I've only just started with page five and thus haven't finished reading everyone's posts, but I just want to make a few quick notes on plwk's post. It was an excellent post, indeed!

First of all, thank you for highlighting a very important point--that the dynamics of a dual approach are bound to be different from an exclusive one. And I would even say that there is bound to be a vast spectrum of dynamics in even a dual approach, as I have already seen in various writings and statements of different masters.

Is there such a thing as a Pure Land or Chán teaching that isn't intertwined at some point with the rest?

The more I look into it, the harder it is to answer this in the affirmative. It's very hard for me to see where one ends and the other begins, which is why I'm quite perplexed by some of Astus's statements.

That's why I have always advocated for both exclusive and dual practice to be within the general framework of Buddha Dharma rather than form exclusive clubs which has bred unnecessary and petty sectarianism in Buddhist history and legacy.

This is entirely my own perspective as well: well-said!

The Name has limitless facets in itself in its function and Dharma Doors. Limiting oneself to one thing at a time is one's own choice but expecting a Buddha's activities to be limited according to one's own limited understanding is hardly justiciable nor warranted...

[Astus]

PorkChop,

"Now your entire straw man rests on this fictional idea that there is a Buddha Recitation that does not involve thinking of that Buddha and the associated narrative."

If by that you mean one recites the name with the intention to attain birth based on the faith in the vow, I have not questioned that. What I said is that during a single-minded recitation one does not think about anything else but the name, otherwise it is not a single-minded but a distracted recitation. But the main point, that is, the difference between calming and insight practice, is that contemplation of the nature of phenomena, of dependent origination, of emptiness, is not included in reciting the name, or even in visualisation. The topic of no-self is not one of the common Pure Land narrative, but I don't see you would argue for that either. Naturally, all Pure Land schools teach buddha-remembrance within a specific context, that's what makes them Pure Land schools. Vajrayana can explain buddha-remembrance in a quite different fashion, just as it happens in other sects. Although all may recite the name, they do it with a different perspective. But that has not been questioned by me at all. It is still and only the lack of contemplating the nature of reality that I have brought up as the reason why recitation in and of itself may not bring about enlightenment in this life. To repeat, I do not question the validity and functionality of buddha-remembrance as effective in getting one to the Pure Land. It is just its relation to enlightenment in this life that would require insight into the nature of reality that I have talked about before and now.

"You've made the claim that Recitation falls under the first with absolutely NO PROOF"

Yes, my claim is that recitation is calming without insight. Should I prove the lack of contemplating emptiness in recitation how? If you have a specific work where a Pure Land teacher actually describes how emptiness is to be meditated upon within the frame of recitation then right there you can disprove my claim. Note that I have already mentioned how recitation can be connected with what is called real-mark buddha-remembrance and investigating who the reciter is.

"you made the claim that there is nothing inherently Buddhist about the Pure Land path"

I presume what you refer to is the part where I say that calming practice is common to both Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools. It is not about what the Pure Land path is or is not.

[Admin_PC]

What I said is that during a single-minded recitation one does not think about anything else but the name, otherwise it is not a single-minded but a distracted recitation.

This is Zen interpretation (which is probably why a Zen master recognized Ippen for something similar), not a native Pure Land interpretation (or really even a Ch'an-Pure Land interpretation - at least none that give any credence to Other Power). Please read Vasubandhu, otherwise, you're just not qualified to be speaking, he says the concentration (shamatha) is the single-minded wish to be born there. Honen & ShanTao never, ever make it just about a word, I've shown that already how many times? Not allowing deluded thoughts to arise is being single-minded, it has very little to do with abandoning the adornments of the Pure Land, the Vows & Virtues of Amitabha, and the wish to see Amitabha Buddha in favor of a single word.

But the main point, that is, the difference between calming and insight practice, is that contemplation of the nature of phenomena, of dependent origination, of emptiness, is not included in reciting the name, or even in visualisation.

Sorry, you're just not getting it. Vasubandhu clearly states that the visions of the Pure Land (and it's adornments, which are clearly linked to mental qualities) that arise are Vipassana (觀), that's even in the name of the Visualization Sutra. How would one accomplish the first part of the 2nd of the 3 minds (understanding that one is a simple deluded being) without observing one's mind? There are different ways of looking at the adornments of the Pure Land; such as commentaries on the Amitabha Sutra that say the adornments are manifestations of the 37 bodhipakṣa, and nobody says to completely ignore them. Tan Luan and Shinran go even further, for them the Pure Land is the formless Dharmakaya, the Tathagata the Dharmakaya manifesting as Compassionate means. So what do you mean there's no Emptiness in Pure Land? It's not part of Honen's One Sheet Document, but that's not universal. Some schools, even Chinese ones include the whole package. Maybe if you were more well read on actual Pure Land doctrine as opposed to anti-Pure Land polemics you'd realize this. My issue is taking polemical statements built on strawmen as the law, without even researching the doctrines of these actual schools (you admitted as much in the earlier post where you quoted Hakuin and others as your own point of view), and then passing judgement on the strawmen as if they were what the schools really taught. By the same token, Chan can't possibly lead to Enlightenment because desecrating Buddha statues doesn't lead to Enlightenment, and that one school did it that one time so it's true for all Chan schools - just as empty a strawman as the stuff you've been peddling in this thread.

I presume what you refer to is the part where I say that calming practice is common to both Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools. It is not about what the Pure Land path is or is not.

Actually it was this one:

Technically it is not much different from non-Buddhist devotional religions where people want to be born in a heaven or some other state.

You went a little too far on that one imho. And, yes, this thread has been about what the Pure Land path is about for a long time now.

BTW
There are some additional issues with your Bodhidharma quote that I didn't get around to...

Well the academic consensus seems to be that this text, 'Treatise on the Destruction of Characteristics' (or 'Breakthrough Sermon' as translated by Red Pine, in Chinese 破相論, found on Dunhuang scroll under the name 觀心論 'Treatise on the Contemplation of the Mind') may well have been composed in the 8th century by Shenxiu (See John McRae's book on the Northern School)

Red Pine's "nian" as "invoke" is already imposing a mid period Pureland reading on this character in the first place. As originally a translation from Sanskrit "smrti" or "anusmrti", it really does mean "recollect", "remember", etc. in the first place. As per the modern 憶. Though in ancient translation idiom, that term often translated terms related to "conceptualization".

Finding a translator who doesn't make anachronistic garbling is not at all easy.

~~Huifeng

So how would that translate in context Ven Huifeng ?

佛者覺也。所謂覺察身心。勿令起惡也。
念者憶也。所謂憶持戒行。不忘精進。

了如是義。名之為念。
故知
念在於心。非在於言。

因筌求魚。得魚忘筌。
因言求意。得意忘言。

"Buddha" means "aware", that is, be aware investigation of body and mind, not letting them arise [any] evil.
"Recollect" means "remember", that is, remember to uphold the practice of morality, not forgetting to be vigorous.

To understand this principle is known as "recollection".
Therefore know
that "recollect" is in the mind, not in the word.

"Due to the net, one catches the fish;
"Having caught the fish, one forgets the net."
Due to the words, one catches the meaning,
Having caught the meaning, one forgets the words.

* Note that the first two lines are paired couplets in Chinese, and the last quotation paired with his application here; see the structure which I've tried to maintain in English.

~~Huifeng

Changes up the meaning quite a bit. Hardly the polemical rant. He does think ethics are essential, but while one is thinking of a Buddha, one is not thinking deluded (evil) thoughts. He also probably wouldn't think too much of Chan/Zen monks who also didn't follow strict ethics. This doesn't contradict the 3 minds, because as stated above, one can't really understand that one is a simple deluded being without observing the delusions of one's mind. Thinking about the perfection of Amida naturally brings to mind our own shortcomings.

Red Pine's translation goes against the text itself, because English "invoke" comes from a term which is "vocal", ie. words and language, not mental.

invoke (v.)
late 15c., from Middle French envoquer (12c.), from Latin invocare "call upon, implore," from in- "upon" (see in- (2)) + vocare "to call," related to vox (genitive vocis) "voice" (see voice (n.)). Related: Invoked; invoking.

Same as the Sanskrit root "vac", "speech", eg. vuccati "to say", ukta "said", etc.

~~Huifeng

Catching the internal inconsistency is part of why I was laughing, especially when it's being used to talk down Buddha Name Recitation (even if only a straw man).