Short Review of "Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice" by Charles B. Jones

Post Reply
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Short Review of "Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice" by Charles B. Jones

Post by Zhen Li »

Hello Pure Landers,

I just finished Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice by Charles B. Jones.

Not long ago I posted a review of Charles B. Jones' more general Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, he was kind enough to post a response, so he probably views this forum—if so, thank you once again for this precious resource.

I thought I'd just give a few thoughts, and keep in mind this is a "short" review because I am not getting critical and into the weeds because I just approach this simply as a practitioner who read this casually.

I would repeat the recommendation I gave Jones' earlier book. This one, which focuses on the Chinese tradition, is one I will probably come back to again and again because it is a treasure trove of materials on how Chinese Pure Land Buddhists approached a lot of issues.

I would say that the book is easy to read and accessible by both scholars and practitioners. I think that people who practice Japanese Pure Land Buddhism would benefit from reading this book as well because it can help us to get out of our bubble and see some of the innovative ways Chinese Buddhists addressed many of the same (but not all) issues. Particularly with regard to self power and other power, as exclusive other power approaches are pretty rare in Chinese Pure Land.

The topics it covers can easily be identified by checking the TOC. But I will just highlight some of the themes that I think Jones treated quite well:

The distinction between “Western-Direction Pure Land” and “Mind-Only Pure Land”, which of course continues in contemporary Pure Land circles, is discussed in terms of his historical precedents more recent commentators such as Yinguang. I particularly liked this saying of Jixing Chewu in response to an advocate of Mind-Only Pure Land:
There was a Chan [monk] who asked, “All dharmas are like a dream. The
Sahā world is definitely a dream; the Pure Land is also a dream. Since they are both equally dreams, then what is the benefit in practising [Pure Land]?”
I said, “Not so. Prior to the seventh [bodhisattva] ground, one practices within dreams, the great dream of ignorance. [. . .] Before the eyes of the sleeper have opened, pain and pleasure will be vivid. In one’s dream, one may receive the extreme suffering of the Sahā world, or one may receive the sublime pleasures of Sukhāvatī. Moreover, to be dreaming of the Sahā world is to go from one dream to another dream, dreams within dreams. One floats and turns about in delusion. But when one dreams of Sukhāvatī, one goes from dreaming to awakening, and from awakening to further awakening until gradually one comes to the great awakening. They are both dreams to be sure, but as dreams their content is very different.” (CBETA X.1182.62:336c5–c12)
And:
The monk Dharmākara uttered his 48 great vows before the Buddha Lokeśvararāja. In accordance with his vows he carried out his great practices for countless great kalpas and by the perfection of the causes and the fruition of the results, he became a Buddha. Dharmākara’s name changed to Amitābha, and his world changed into the Pure Land. Now the reason that Amitābha can be Amitābha is that he deeply realized his self-nature as mind-only. However, this Amitābha and his Pure Land—are they not self-natured Amitābha [that is, of the nature of the practitioner’s own self] and a mind-only Pure Land? This mind-nature is exactly the same in both sentient beings and buddhas; it does not belong more to buddhas and less to beings. (CBETA X.1182.62:336c24–337a5)
I think there are many more instances in Jones' book where he shows that the Pure Land "masters never advocated abandoning the concept of “mind-only Pure Land” and the exclusive adoption of “western-direction Pure Land.” Rather, they sought to hold both these points of view in tension, as one holds Conventional and Ultimate truth in Mādhyamika thought, or transcends both Emptiness and the Provisional to reach the Middle in Tiantai." (p. 126)

Ethics and the question of why should we uphold precepts if our birth is secured. This is also a place where Japanese and Chinese Pure Land part ways. Jones shows how there were not really any attempts to show that precepts don't matter, just because birth is secured. An example, which I found interesting was this quote by Jixing Chewu
If I do not think of universal liberation, but seek only to benefit myself, then I am deficient as to the principle. If the mind is not pacified, how much more will I not generate the Great Mind? This being so, then externally I will not resonate (gǎntōng 感通) with all of the buddhas, and internally, I will not be in accord with my own fundamental nature. Above, I will not be able to attain the perfect Buddha Way, and below, I will not be able to benefit widely the multitude of beings. (CBETA X.1182.62:333b18–b20)
So, to not have wholesome conduct would be to contradict bodhicitta. I think in Shin, there is the idea of transformations in conduct coming from the natural working (自然法爾) of Amida after having received Shinjin. If we see Shinjin is Bodhicitta, this is natural. But there is no implication that a standard needs to be kept up—rather the contrary. Anyway, I thought this was an interesting parallel but also point of divergence.

In regard to methods of Nianfo, I think I was a bit more familiar with some of the points he brings up, but he makes a good point about Nianfo often not being for rebirth. Many used Nianfo as a way to improve their daily life, remove worries, have apotropaic benefits here and now etc. He has a very interesting chapter on Lushan Huiyuan, and how he probably was not even practising Pure Land for Birth, and questions to what extent the White Lotus Society understood Pure Land in the way it came to be practised. I think Jones makes a good case for questioning whether Lushan Huiyuan can really be considered a patriarch of Pure Land, unless that is the mythologised version of Lushan Huiyuan that developed over time.

Definitely recommended.
:namaste:
Shinjin
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:44 pm

Re: Short Review of "Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice" by Charles B. Jones

Post by Shinjin »

I recommend it as well. It explains the history and evolution of Pure Land Buddhism quite nicely.
ZhengShen
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:27 pm

Re: Short Review of "Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Understanding a Tradition of Practice" by Charles B. Jones

Post by ZhengShen »

Thanks for the very comprehensive and helpful review! I've been following Dr. Jones' work for some time - I've found everything I've read valuable, and will check out this book. And it's great to see that the Chinese Pure Land tradition is beginning to be more discussed in English. I have, of course, nothing but respect for the Japanese Pure Land tradition - but my heart is drawn more to the Chinese - and until recently, there has been very little available.

Zheng Shen
Post Reply

Return to “Pure Land”