Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post Reply
源食う
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:45 am

Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by 源食う »

After being raised in a traditionally pure land household, where the Buddhism we practiced was very Americanized and "Amitabha" was basically another word for "Jesus", I've been trying to learn more about Buddhism in general and Pure Land Buddhism in particular. I've been a bit confused about the general idea of karma, especially since, first, different sects seem to have vastly different views of karma (in some Theravada sects, karma is one of many factors that produce change and karma is irreversible, in Mahayana karma is often reversible through practice, and in some sects the world is just the karmic effect of buddhas).

One particular thing that has been bugging me is the pure land view of karma and a "just world". One thing I've found appealing about both Jodo-shu and Jodo-shin-shu is their relative egalitarianism--their founders rejected much of the class, gender, and lay/monk distinctions of their day and developed a path that was accessible to everyone. Not only that but this led to material consequences like the Ikko-Ikki. On Wikipedia I saw that Honen-Shonin is quoted as saying the following in Common Sayings of Honen:
After death, if I could be born in the world of humans, I would like to be born a very ignorant man and to diligently practice the nembutsu.
This suggests that Honen values such a rebirth, in a humble social position, to be theologically fruitful. That is, despite his decades of Buddhist study and practicing Nembutsu, he doesn't express rebirth as a wealthy king, learned monk, or even a God to be his appropriate reward.

That said, the Infinite/Immeasurable Life Sutra, one of the three core pure land sutras, it is written that:
The poor beggar is lowly, and his clothes can barely cover his body. He can hardly feed himself to stay alive. He is always hungry, cold, and in distress, having lost all human standards. All his tribulations stem from his past lives, during which he did not plant roots of virtue.

This is definitely not a very flattering portrait of the poor, and king of brings into play the idea of a "just world" with all the sort of victim blame conclusions one can draw from that.

Could anyone share their insight into Mahayana views of karma and a "just world", as well as the way that Pure Land buddhism--especially Jodo and Shin Buddhism--understand this in the context of their somewhat anti-classist views of the pure land?

I realize this is probably a huge projection of my modern views onto centuries of development of pure land theories of karma--but I'm hoping this is a step towards enlightenment! Or at least ojo. Thank you!
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by Ayu »

Because it appears to me that you are asking a genuine question about Pureland and expecting an explanation from Pureland POV, I moved the topic to the subforum Pureland.
源食う
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:45 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by 源食う »

Ayu wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:27 am Because it appears to me that you are asking a genuine question about Pureland and expecting an explanation from Pureland POV, I moved the topic to the subforum Pureland.
Thank you!
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by Queequeg »

源食う wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:01 am After being raised in a traditionally pure land household, where the Buddhism we practiced was very Americanized and "Amitabha" was basically another word for "Jesus", I've been trying to learn more about Buddhism in general and Pure Land Buddhism in particular. I've been a bit confused about the general idea of karma, especially since, first, different sects seem to have vastly different views of karma (in some Theravada sects, karma is one of many factors that produce change and karma is irreversible, in Mahayana karma is often reversible through practice, and in some sects the world is just the karmic effect of buddhas).
Karma cannot be reversed. What is done is done leaving an indelible mark on your present mind. Unlike Theravada which aims to break the chain of causation between feeling and craving (see 12 linked chain of causation) and letting karma exhaust, in Mahayana one can undertake practices that "purify" your mind, disrupting the habitual movements that tend to further negative karma. Furthermore, in Mahayana one aims to eliminate not just ordinary ignorance due to karma, but fundamental ignorance that occludes the true aspect of reality and sets the wheel of samsara in motion. Eliminating fundamental ignorance has the effect of immediately transcending the three fold world.

The "just world" stuff you are asking about does not have direct connection to the Buddhist path. You're asking about society and politics. If you want an idea about that, look at Nagarjuna's advice - Letter from a Friend and Precious Garland. They offer ideas as to the ideal conduct of a ruler, and by extension, the way society should be governed.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

The material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is neither here nor there when we are taking about karma and the mind. A poor person who is satisfied with a simple life may be much happier than a rich person who is never satisfied, who never has enough wealth and power.
This can be influenced by previous habits and actions in past lives.
It’s all about how you approach life.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

The material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is neither here nor there when we are taking about karma and the mind.
Unless I'm badly mistaken, the traditional presentation of karma says that the material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is a direct manifestation of karma. You may want to make the point that objective circumstances are not determinative of the status of our subjective awareness, but they are hugely influential. If you object to this idea please try holding your breath for 10 minutes. If you must concede that taking another breath is compulsory then that is enough to establish that, until liberation from "self", objective situations can be compulsory.
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)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:08 pm
The material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is neither here nor there when we are taking about karma and the mind.
Unless I'm badly mistaken, the traditional presentation of karma says that the material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is a direct manifestation of karma. You may want to make the point that objective circumstances are not determinative of the status of our subjective awareness, but they are hugely influential. If you object to this idea please try holding your breath for 10 minutes. If you must concede that taking another breath is compulsory then that is enough to establish that, until liberation from "self", objective situations can be compulsory.
They are, as you say, a direct result of karma. But beyond that they don’t hold any value. Being born rich, or as a male for that matter, isn’t intrinsically any better than being born poor or as a female (there are those who think that being born female is the unfortunate result of having performed negative actions in a past life).
Assigning value to material conditions as being the result of karma is making the mistake of seeing karma as a system of rewards and punishments, which it is not.

Being born into a rich family may be the result of karma, but if one is also mentally a hungry ghost, and they never feel they have enough, this is also karma.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by LastLegend »

源食う wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:01 am After being raised in a traditionally pure land household, where the Buddhism we practiced was very Americanized and "Amitabha" was basically another word for "Jesus", I've been trying to learn more about Buddhism in general and Pure Land Buddhism in particular. I've been a bit confused about the general idea of karma, especially since, first, different sects seem to have vastly different views of karma (in some Theravada sects, karma is one of many factors that produce change and karma is irreversible, in Mahayana karma is often reversible through practice, and in some sects the world is just the karmic effect of buddhas).

One particular thing that has been bugging me is the pure land view of karma and a "just world". One thing I've found appealing about both Jodo-shu and Jodo-shin-shu is their relative egalitarianism--their founders rejected much of the class, gender, and lay/monk distinctions of their day and developed a path that was accessible to everyone. Not only that but this led to material consequences like the Ikko-Ikki. On Wikipedia I saw that Honen-Shonin is quoted as saying the following in Common Sayings of Honen:
After death, if I could be born in the world of humans, I would like to be born a very ignorant man and to diligently practice the nembutsu.
This suggests that Honen values such a rebirth, in a humble social position, to be theologically fruitful. That is, despite his decades of Buddhist study and practicing Nembutsu, he doesn't express rebirth as a wealthy king, learned monk, or even a God to be his appropriate reward.

That said, the Infinite/Immeasurable Life Sutra, one of the three core pure land sutras, it is written that:
The poor beggar is lowly, and his clothes can barely cover his body. He can hardly feed himself to stay alive. He is always hungry, cold, and in distress, having lost all human standards. All his tribulations stem from his past lives, during which he did not plant roots of virtue.

This is definitely not a very flattering portrait of the poor, and king of brings into play the idea of a "just world" with all the sort of victim blame conclusions one can draw from that.

Could anyone share their insight into Mahayana views of karma and a "just world", as well as the way that Pure Land buddhism--especially Jodo and Shin Buddhism--understand this in the context of their somewhat anti-classist views of the pure land?

I realize this is probably a huge projection of my modern views onto centuries of development of pure land theories of karma--but I'm hoping this is a step towards enlightenment! Or at least ojo. Thank you!
Pure Land is called such because there is no root cause of suffering in that world. Honen said that because he gets to practice Amitabha recitation which is precious.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Assigning value to material conditions as being the result of karma is making the mistake of seeing karma as a system of rewards and punishments, which it is not.
You don’t have to “assign value” to suffering. All creatures wish to avoid it.

My understanding of your point is that there’s no judgment or criticism in the mechanism of karma. There’s no omnipotent judge that hands out rewards and punishments. That’s accepted by all Buddhists to the best of my knowledge.
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)
源食う
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:45 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by 源食う »

I played around with the search function on the Jodo-shu website a bit and saw that the Japanese pure-land monk Ryoei (良栄 aka 理本) has a work called "Seeing and Hearing the Recorded Commentaries on the Treatise of Rebirth in the Pure Land" (往生論註記見聞, not great at translation). In this work, there is a section (page 549 of the first volume) describing "worldly truths" which relates chakravartins, collective karma, "high and low" rebirths, and pure land practice. It's in Classical Chinese and I can't find a single translation either into English or modern Japanese (although the Chinese has Japanese reading aids which almost make it more difficult to read). If anyone is particularly good with Kanbun-kundoku and wants to answer my question from the point of view of a 15th century monk, go ahead: http://jodoshuzensho.jp/jozensearch_pos ... o=J01_0549

Bonus points if you can translate "非是非非之是者非但是云非是非但非云非非非非即是也", a sentence composed almost entirely of grammatical particles, without going insane.
User avatar
bowsamic
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:36 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by bowsamic »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:18 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:08 pm
The material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is neither here nor there when we are taking about karma and the mind.
Unless I'm badly mistaken, the traditional presentation of karma says that the material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is a direct manifestation of karma. You may want to make the point that objective circumstances are not determinative of the status of our subjective awareness, but they are hugely influential. If you object to this idea please try holding your breath for 10 minutes. If you must concede that taking another breath is compulsory then that is enough to establish that, until liberation from "self", objective situations can be compulsory.
They are, as you say, a direct result of karma. But beyond that they don’t hold any value. Being born rich, or as a male for that matter, isn’t intrinsically any better than being born poor or as a female (there are those who think that being born female is the unfortunate result of having performed negative actions in a past life).
Assigning value to material conditions as being the result of karma is making the mistake of seeing karma as a system of rewards and punishments, which it is not.

Being born into a rich family may be the result of karma, but if one is also mentally a hungry ghost, and they never feel they have enough, this is also karma.
I think the material conditions are very relevant to both our practise and our suffering. That's why the Buddha spoke about karma causing material conditions so extensively. He said that being poor, being ugly, being blind etc are all results of the previous actions. Why do you feel justified telling us that is not relevant if the Buddha taught us it? Do you know something he didn't?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

bowsamic wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:36 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:18 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:08 pm
Unless I'm badly mistaken, the traditional presentation of karma says that the material conditions into which one is born, or lives, is a direct manifestation of karma. You may want to make the point that objective circumstances are not determinative of the status of our subjective awareness, but they are hugely influential. If you object to this idea please try holding your breath for 10 minutes. If you must concede that taking another breath is compulsory then that is enough to establish that, until liberation from "self", objective situations can be compulsory.
They are, as you say, a direct result of karma. But beyond that they don’t hold any value. Being born rich, or as a male for that matter, isn’t intrinsically any better than being born poor or as a female (there are those who think that being born female is the unfortunate result of having performed negative actions in a past life).
Assigning value to material conditions as being the result of karma is making the mistake of seeing karma as a system of rewards and punishments, which it is not.

Being born into a rich family may be the result of karma, but if one is also mentally a hungry ghost, and they never feel they have enough, this is also karma.
I think the material conditions are very relevant to both our practise and our suffering. That's why the Buddha spoke about karma causing material conditions so extensively. He said that being poor, being ugly, being blind etc are all results of the previous actions. Why do you feel justified telling us that is not relevant if the Buddha taught us it? Do you know something he didn't?
Material conditions are relevant, but they themselves aren’t what matters. It’s how we relate to and respond to those conditions, and that’s where karma comes into it. If you’ve practiced greed and clinging previously, then regardless of whether you are rich or poor in this life, you will have a tendency to continue the behavior you’ve practiced.

Ugly and poor are subjective concepts. If The buddha thinks you are ugly, then are you? If I think you are good-looking, is that the result of your karma or mine? You have whatever face you have. Whether it’s a pretty face or an ugly face is in the mind of whoever is looking at it. If anything, it is my karma, not yours, which influences how I perceive it, which determines if you are beautiful or ugly.

Are wandering Buddhist monks who own only a bowl, a robe, and a razor rich or poor? I lived for years below the official poverty level but never felt poor. Material objects come and go. But at the time of death, wealth won’t help a rich person. The Buddha pointed this out too. If a materially poor person has cultivated a peaceful mind, then who is actually richer, that person, or the bloated millionaire who grasps endlessly for more wealth, political power, and popularity?

Therefore, such concepts can really only refer to states of mind. Since karma is a product of mind, then doesn’t this make sense? I’m not disputing what the Buddha taught. I’m saying that regarding superficial and subjective appearances as the karmic result is a common misinterpretation. In fact, such an interpretation directly contradicts the principle of emptiness (suñata) that phenomena possess no inherent reality.

Blindness is a physical handicap. So was being a female, in Buddha’s day. So, if being born blind is the result of some negative action in the past, then the same would have to be said for being female, or for that matter, dark skinned, if you consider that the indian caste system is heavily biased by skin color, with dark skinned Dalits being relegated to the status of “untouchables”.

I’m not disputing that whatever conditions one has arrived at in this life are related to karma. All I’m saying is that you can’t impute value judgements in any meaningful way. You can’t say someone was born with a disability, or with an atypical physical appearance, or as a black female because they did terrible things in a past life. To do such is to assert that those traits are objectively, and intrinsically negative traits to have in this life.

So, yes, you can say that whatever your condition results from karma. But it’s a meaninglessness statement. Karma is an unimaginably complex process of infinite conditions, The Buddha even said that one would lose their mind trying to unravel what karma brought what phenomena to its current state of being.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
bowsamic
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:36 am

Re: Karma, Social Class, and the Pure Land (oh my!)

Post by bowsamic »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:19 pm
bowsamic wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:36 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:18 pm

They are, as you say, a direct result of karma. But beyond that they don’t hold any value. Being born rich, or as a male for that matter, isn’t intrinsically any better than being born poor or as a female (there are those who think that being born female is the unfortunate result of having performed negative actions in a past life).
Assigning value to material conditions as being the result of karma is making the mistake of seeing karma as a system of rewards and punishments, which it is not.

Being born into a rich family may be the result of karma, but if one is also mentally a hungry ghost, and they never feel they have enough, this is also karma.
I think the material conditions are very relevant to both our practise and our suffering. That's why the Buddha spoke about karma causing material conditions so extensively. He said that being poor, being ugly, being blind etc are all results of the previous actions. Why do you feel justified telling us that is not relevant if the Buddha taught us it? Do you know something he didn't?
Material conditions are relevant, but they themselves aren’t what matters. It’s how we relate to and respond to those conditions, and that’s where karma comes into it. If you’ve practiced greed and clinging previously, then regardless of whether you are rich or poor in this life, you will have a tendency to continue the behavior you’ve practiced.

Ugly and poor are subjective concepts. If The buddha thinks you are ugly, then are you? If I think you are good-looking, is that the result of your karma or mine? You have whatever face you have. Whether it’s a pretty face or an ugly face is in the mind of whoever is looking at it. If anything, it is my karma, not yours, which influences how I perceive it, which determines if you are beautiful or ugly.

Are wandering Buddhist monks who own only a bowl, a robe, and a razor rich or poor? I lived for years below the official poverty level but never felt poor. Material objects come and go. But at the time of death, wealth won’t help a rich person. The Buddha pointed this out too. If a materially poor person has cultivated a peaceful mind, then who is actually richer, that person, or the bloated millionaire who grasps endlessly for more wealth, political power, and popularity?

Therefore, such concepts can really only refer to states of mind. Since karma is a product of mind, then doesn’t this make sense? I’m not disputing what the Buddha taught. I’m saying that regarding superficial and subjective appearances as the karmic result is a common misinterpretation. In fact, such an interpretation directly contradicts the principle of emptiness (suñata) that phenomena possess no inherent reality.

Blindness is a physical handicap. So was being a female, in Buddha’s day. So, if being born blind is the result of some negative action in the past, then the same would have to be said for being female, or for that matter, dark skinned, if you consider that the indian caste system is heavily biased by skin color, with dark skinned Dalits being relegated to the status of “untouchables”.

I’m not disputing that whatever conditions one has arrived at in this life are related to karma. All I’m saying is that you can’t impute value judgements in any meaningful way. You can’t say someone was born with a disability, or with an atypical physical appearance, or as a black female because they did terrible things in a past life. To do such is to assert that those traits are objectively, and intrinsically negative traits to have in this life.

So, yes, you can say that whatever your condition results from karma. But it’s a meaninglessness statement. Karma is an unimaginably complex process of infinite conditions, The Buddha even said that one would lose their mind trying to unravel what karma brought what phenomena to its current state of being.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with it but within the context of this thread it does nothing except, imo, harbour doubt in the Buddha's teachings on karmic effects. This thread isn't about subjective interpretation of karmic effects and whether or not they have an objective basis, but about what the Buddha taught about why we have the good or bad conditions that we subjectively perceive as positive or negative. For example, questions such as "why am I poorer?", or "why am I disabled?" The Buddha taught it is because we are the owners of our own previous actions. Whether or not you perceive them as good or bad is not really relevant to the fact that the Buddha taught that extensively. In my opinion to me it seems like you are bringing it up in a misguided attempt to distract OP from the fact that the Buddha indeed extensively and repeatedly taught that, either way it is totally irrelevant to the current thread.
Post Reply

Return to “Pure Land”