Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

Since I joined this forum about 2 months ago, I have not found the above-mentioned theme yet which has been the most curious to me. Generally speaking, simultaneous faith to both dogmas is very uncommon in Japan except Ohbaku Zen imported from China a couple of hundreds year ago as the newest Buddhism sect. In the meantime, so many people in current China still seem to have faith naturally combined Zen plus Pure Land without a hesitation according to relevant information sources. As a matter of fact, I am interested in both dogmas but I have been worried about such dualistic faith within myself pretty incompatible with each other. About five hundred years ago, there was a samurai concurrently a faithful Buddhist monk named Shosan Suzuki who was known by so-called AC/DC, meaning Zen concurrently Pure Land Buddhist. Other than him, a few people are known as another AC/DC such as Ryokan monk and Daisetsu Suzuki's in his late life. The most symbolic difference is being focused on the argument on salvation by either self-effort or Amidah Buddha.
Is there any person who can show me a reasonable logic without a contradiction between in both manners of salvation?
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Zhen Li »

I think the most prominent discussions of the topic, you are aware, were made by DT Suzuki. In the UK, there is a Sangha called Three Wheels (https://www.threewheels.org.uk/) established by Reverend Taira which is heavily influenced by Suzuki's interpretation of Shin Buddhism. I have not visited, but as you can see on their website, they freely mix Zen and Pure Land in the spirit of Suzuki.

I think the question here is not so much of self-power mixed with Pure Land (which might be what we see in Chinese or Obaku practice), but to what extent we can see Other Power manifest through Zazen. In this respect Suzuki wrote eloquently (while I don't always agree with his interpretations which put too much weight on "religious experience" being influenced as he was by William James), but we can also see many strains of this thinking in Dogen's writings.

For the Chinese perspectives, I suggest looking at Charles Jones' two recent books on Pure Land:

Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice
and
Chinese Pure Land Buddhism

He probably explains how it is understood in Chinese Buddhism better than anyone. The paradigm of self and other power doesn't really come into play there explicitly, but we do see similar ideas come up.
User avatar
curtstein
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:34 pm
Location: rockville, maryland, usa
Contact:

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by curtstein »

There are two aspects of Japanese Buddhism that make it quite a bit different from the other Buddhisms of East Asia: (1) the tendency toward the formation of separate, rival "schools", and (2) the popularity of the "single practice" approach. In contrast, Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam tends to be much more eclectic and syncretic, and both practitioners and teachers are not so fixated on adopting one "single practice". This obviously strongly colors how "Zen" and "Pure Land" are viewed by those who are only (or primarily) familiar with Japanese Buddhism.

The recommendation already made to read Charles B. Jones' excellent books will definitely get you going in the right direction.

Here is a quote from a 16th century Korean Zen Master that you might find relevant (it's long - but worth the read):
From "Mirror of Zen" by Sosan Taesa, translated by Hyong Gak Sunim
https://books.google.cg/books?id=MP_9WyyFptYC

52
Merely chanting with the lips is nothing more than
recitation of the Buddha’s name. Chanting with a
one-pointed mind is true chanting. Just mouthing the
words without mindfulness, absorbed in habitual
thinking, will do no real good for your practice.

Commentary
The six-worded dharma practice of chanting "NAMU AMITA BUL" can be
a shortcut road for cutting through the cycle of transmigration. But
when you chant this, you must remain focused one-pointedly on the
realm of the Buddha, reciting the Buddha’s name clearly and without
clinging to any passing thoughts. When your mindfulness accords
with the sound produced by your lips, completely cutting off all
thinking, this can truly be called "chanting."

Capping Word
The Fifth Patriarch once said, "It is better to keep your true, original
mind than to contemplate the Buddhas of the ten directions." The
Six Patriarch said, "If you only contemplate other Buddhas, you will
never break free from life and death. You should keep your buddhamind
as it is in order to arrive on the other shore." And he taught
further, "Buddha originates in your own nature. There is no need to
seek outside yourself." He also said, "Ignorant people chant in the
hope of being born in the Pure Land, or Land of Utmost Bliss, but
true practitioners only focus instead on clearing their own mind."
Also, "The Buddha does not save sentient beings. Rather, sentient
beings save themselves the instant they awaken to their true mind."
These eminent teachers pointed directly to our original mind, without
depending on skillful means: there is no other teaching than this.

And yet, however direct and effective such teaching may be, we
must also be able to say that paradise and Amita Buddha with his
forty-eight vows really do exist. Therefore it is taught that one who
recites Amita Buddha’s name even ten times will attain rebirth in a
lotus flower, thus escaping the cycle of birth and death. This teaching
has been given by all the Buddhas in the three divisions of time; all
bodhisattvas of the ten directions vow to attain such a rebirth, too.
The stories of those who have been reborn this way—either in the
past or in the present—have been faithfully handed down to us. So it
is hoped that no practitioners hold to mistaken views, and simply practice hard.

Amita is a Sanskrit word meaning "infinite life" and "infinite light,"
and is used as a name for the Buddha of the ten directions and the
three divisions of time. As a younger practitioner, he was called
Venerable Dharmakara ("Store of the Dharma"). Making the fortyeight
vows before Lokesvararaja Buddha, he proclaimed, "When I
attain to buddhahood, should any of the numberless devas or
humans residing in the ten directions—even down to the tiniest
insects—chant my name but ten times, I will cause their rebirth in my
heavenly realm. I hereby vow never to enter fully into Nirvana until
this vow is accomplished."

Ancient sages in other times pronounced similar practices: "The
sound of chanting even a single word weakens even demonic forces,
and erases one’s name from the lists of the dead in Hell. Instead,
one is reborn as a lotus flower in a pond of purest gold." The
Repentance Dharma teachings expand on this, saying, "We can use
our own innate power for spiritual practice, and we can use the spiritual
power of others. Progress through reliance on the former is
slower, while the latter is fast. Imagine two men who wish to cross a
vast sea: One man plants trees, raises them through hard work, cuts
them down when they are grown, and makes a boat. Then he
attempts his journey. This is what it is like to rely solely on your own
power. But another man simply borrows someone else’s boat and
crosses the sea directly. Anyone can see that this is a faster method.
It can be likened to relying on the power of the Buddha in our
spiritual practice."

This sutra also says, "A child who is threatened with fire or rising
waters cries out desperately, and his parents rush to save him. In the
same way, when a man chants the name of the Buddha, even in the
hour of his death, the Buddha will greet him with mysterious powers.
The Buddha’s great love and great compassion are greater even
than the love of a parent for their child, because sentient beings’
torment in the ocean of life and death is even more excruciating than
anything inflicted by fires or floods."

Of course, there are people who may hear teachings like this and
say, "Nonsense! Your own mind is already the Pure Land.6 There is
no such thing as being reborn in some such place!" Or "This is lowclass
teaching! Your own true nature is Amita Buddha, not different.
There is not some 'other' Amita Buddha who meets you!"

Such words might have some truth to them, but they are not the
whole view. The reality of our condition is different from just those
views. Amita Buddha is perfect, having neither desire nor anger. But
are we free from desire or anger? The Buddha is known to be able to
change a raging hell into a world of lotus flowers just as effortlessly
as you might turn your hand over. And yet do we who live in hourly
fear of tumbling headlong into hell due to the unstoppable
momentum of our karma ever change this hell into lotus flowers?
The Buddha perceives infinite billions of galaxies as your or my eye
might perceive an object right in front of our nose. And yet we cannot
see the things that are happening outside the thin walls of this very
room, much less perceive the infinite billions of galaxies in every
direction!

In the same way, though at the most fundamental level our nature
is the very nature of Amita Buddha, our actions are those of sentient
beings. The former and the latter, the ideal and the reality, are as far
apart as heaven and earth. Master Kuei-feng was clearly aware of
this when he said, "Even one who attains sudden enlightenment in
the end must do continuous, gradual practice." How right he is!
Now let us turn again to the one who claims that he is already the
same as Amita Buddha and ask him, How is it that Shakyamuni
Buddha was manifested at the urging of this universe? And how is it
that an Amita Buddha could appear as such a spontaneous
manifestation?

You can only truly understand if you reflect deeply within yourself.
When you find yourself suddenly being pulled through death’s door,
and there is no recourse back, are you unshakably confident that
you can find the freedom taught by the Buddhas even in that
moment? If not, then you should fully examine your foolish pride to
see whether it would not be better for you to discard that right now,
lest it trick you into the hellish torments of a lower rebirth!

Great Patriarchs of the dharma though they were, even such as
Asvaghosha and Nagarjuna must have felt this, for they always
emphasized the crucial importance of striving toward a good rebirth
in our next life. Then who are we to disregard so easily the matter of
our next rebirth? The Buddha himself declared the importance of our
diligently striving: "The Pure Land of the Western Paradise is far, far
from here. You must pass 100,000 lands, and even 8,000 more
regions, in order to reach it." Thus he freely employed words about
space and distance to give an almost visual sense, for the sake of
leading those of dull perceptions, to prod them on. But in other
places he said with equal sincerity, "The Pure Land of the Western
Paradise is not a faraway place. Why? Because the very mind of
sentient beings is the place of Amita Buddha." This teaching reveals
his free use of expedient means for leading those of quicker
faculties.

So we can see from all of this that the teachings can freely use
seemingly different expedient means and expressions to point to the
same universal substance. Only the words themselves have a
different appearance and meaning, yet the point they communicate
is the same. For one whose insight is in accord with his actions, it is
possible to see through what is said to be "near" or "far." This is why
our tradition can embrace both ways of practice: calling out to Amita
Buddha, like Hui-yuan, and looking directly into true nature, like
Jui-yen.


53
When you hear sutras being chanted—either by your
own voice or by other people—you are cultivating
affinity for the teachings and practice. It is a Way that
leads to a joyful mind and great spiritual merit. This
body is no more stable than a bubble: it will soon
disappear. But any efforts made for the sake of truth
will never die.

Commentary
These words point to truly wise study: It is like one who ingests a
priceless diamond; this is something greater than just receiving and
holding the seven other most precious gems. Zen Master Yungming said,
"Even if you hear the Dharma teachings, though you may
not necessarily have complete faith in their meaning, nevertheless a
seed has been planted that will eventually result in your becoming a
buddha. And then even if you study these teachings yet still fail to
attain their true meaning, you have nevertheless made enough merit
that you cannot fail to be reborn as a human or deva (heavenly
spirit)."

54
When studying Buddhist sutras, if you do not reflect
deeply on your own mind at the same time, you could
study the entire 84,000-volume canon of the
Buddha’s words and still it would not do you any
good whatsoever.

Commentary
The previous chapter described the inner nature of wise study of the
sutras; this teaching tells how one may do the same study unwisely.
Just mouthing or reading words without interior reflection on mind
makes your actions no different from those of a bird chirping on a
spring day, or an insect buzzing through an autumn night. Kuei-feng
taught, "Just reading the sutras and chasing after the literal meaning
of the words themselves, from its very origin, is study that cannot
lead you to an awakening. Interpreting texts and analyzing the
meaning of words merely produces heaps of desire, anger, and
ignorant, mistaken views."
"there's no one here. there's only you and me." leonard cohen
https://www.mindisbuddha.org/
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

Zhen Li wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:20 am I think the most prominent discussions of the topic, you are aware, were made by DT Suzuki. In the UK, there is a Sangha called Three Wheels (https://www.threewheels.org.uk/) established by Reverend Taira which is heavily influenced by Suzuki's interpretation of Shin Buddhism. I have not visited, but as you can see on their website, they freely mix Zen and Pure Land in the spirit of Suzuki.

I think the question here is not so much of self-power mixed with Pure Land (which might be what we see in Chinese or Obaku practice), but to what extent we can see Other Power manifest through Zazen. In this respect Suzuki wrote eloquently (while I don't always agree with his interpretations which put too much weight on "religious experience" being influenced as he was by William James), but we can also see many strains of this thinking in Dogen's writings.

For the Chinese perspectives, I suggest looking at Charles Jones' two recent books on Pure Land:

Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice
and
Chinese Pure Land Buddhism

He probably explains how it is understood in Chinese Buddhism better than anyone. The paradigm of self and other power doesn't really come into play there explicitly, but we do see similar ideas come up.
First I like to tell you what I knew about this agenda is too little to carry on this debate. Instead, I like to ask you my question with only limited realm; i.e. whether the most prominent dogma came up with by Shinran as to the concept of “absolute faith to Amidah Buddha without individual self-effort on purpose” can co-exist with those of other Buddhism, like especially with Zen heavily stressing necessity of Bodhicitta. On the other hand, it is an apparent fact Shin sect regards it essential for a person with poor efforts and knowledge to be relieved first by Amidah Buddha by urging people to renouncing intentional self-efforts.
Frankly speaking, I have once tried to read Daisetsu Suzuki's "Comment on Pure Land lineage ideology" but I gave up on it on a halfway due to too difficult. Especially I was impressed with his heavily stressing on something like innate talent or religious experience to embrace a faith to Amidah Buddha, as you mentioned as well. It may be my misunderstand?
User avatar
Tukaram
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:04 pm

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Tukaram »

curtstein wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:26 pm In contrast, Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam tends to be much more eclectic and syncretic, and both practitioners and teachers are not so fixated on adopting one "single practice".
This makes sense to me. I actually was a bit lost with the title of this thread, because to me there should be no "versus" in Buddhism (or any religion for that matter). Zen and Pure Land are simply tools.

Before retiring I was an air conditioning contractor. I had a job to do, I had needle-nosed pliers, and slip joint pliers. Either one can do the job, but for some jobs one is preferable. Not a bad idea to have access to both.

I could never see me fall into the trap of one school or one path. But then again, if it works for someone else - good for them. 😎
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

It’s funny, but the question,
“Why aren’t there discussions about…”
always seem to be asked by someone who
also didn’t start the discussion.
And then, the discussion is started.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:08 am Is there any person who can show me a reasonable logic without a contradiction between in both manners of salvation?
The two paths are remarkably similar in that the practitioner must abandon the comfort of rational thinking.
A scholar I know once referred to pure land Buddhism as “brilliantly stupid” and by the way, this was meant as a compliment. By “stupid” he meant that one has to drop all intellectualization and analytical thinking and just chant Buddha’s name faithfully. As a scholar and an intellectual, he found this to be the only thing to cut through his habitual clinging mindstream.
In this way, it is very much like a zen koan or even a whack from the master’s stick. It knocks you out of your orbit.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

curtstein wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:26 pm There are two aspects of Japanese Buddhism that make it quite a bit different from the other Buddhisms of East Asia: (1) the tendency toward the formation of separate, rival "schools", and (2) the popularity of the "single practice" approach. In contrast, Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam tends to be much more eclectic and syncretic, and both practitioners and teachers are not so fixated on adopting one "single practice". This obviously strongly colors how "Zen" and "Pure Land" are viewed by those who are only (or primarily) familiar with Japanese Buddhism.

The recommendation already made to read Charles B. Jones' excellent books will definitely get you going in the right direction.

Here is a quote from a 16th century Korean Zen Master that you might find relevant (it's long - but worth the read):
Thank you for your comment and introducing proficient phrases which is thought to take not a short time for me to understand. In view of your comment as to primarily coming from difference in a national character, it is most possible to agree with you despite lack of my familiar with other Asian peoples’ faith style. Based on your logic true, further why do our Japanese adhere to points you suggested? Are we so stubborn against eclecticism or syncretism? One of high ranking Ohbaku monk once suggested me a similar opinion to yours, I just remember. Shinran's thought does not seem to compromise that of other Buddhism dogma in view of "absolute faith to Amidah Buddha by abandoning any intentional discretion" by any means. Oh well, I must still remain wondered why.
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

Tukaram wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 4:40 am
curtstein wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:26 pm In contrast, Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam tends to be much more eclectic and syncretic, and both practitioners and teachers are not so fixated on adopting one "single practice".
This makes sense to me. I actually was a bit lost with the title of this thread, because to me there should be no "versus" in Buddhism (or any religion for that matter). Zen and Pure Land are simply tools.

Before retiring I was an air conditioning contractor. I had a job to do, I had needle-nosed pliers, and slip joint pliers. Either one can do the job, but for some jobs one is preferable. Not a bad idea to have access to both.

I could never see me fall into the trap of one school or one path. But then again, if it works for someone else - good for them. 😎
I cannot but say first that so many Japanese Buddhism oriented people especially Pure Land lineages furthermore Shin sect must be surprised at learning a fact people in other east Asian countries have faith to both Zen and Pure Land quite naturally to the contrary to us. Perhaps most of Japanese people can hardly understand there is a way of regarding a religion as just like a tool as you mention.
This fact may come simply from a discrepancy in a nation character. Otherwise, Shin dogma symbolized as “absolute faith to Amidah Buddha by abandoning all human discretion” may not be known to other east Asian countries peoples. This dogma is supposed to be a hyper fundamental and incompatible with other Mahayana Buddhism.
In the meanwhile, do Pure Land lineages in other countries appeal for such a fundamental dogma like the one path as Japanese Shin as well? In other words, aren't there any kinds of a tradition like "single practice" or "one path" in other countries?
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 4:52 am
Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:08 am Is there any person who can show me a reasonable logic without a contradiction between in both manners of salvation?
The two paths are remarkably similar in that the practitioner must abandon the comfort of rational thinking.
A scholar I know once referred to pure land Buddhism as “brilliantly stupid” and by the way, this was meant as a compliment. By “stupid” he meant that one has to drop all intellectualization and analytical thinking and just chant Buddha’s name faithfully. As a scholar and an intellectual, he found this to be the only thing to cut through his habitual clinging mindstream.
In this way, it is very much like a zen koan or even a whack from the master’s stick. It knocks you out of your orbit.
I think a manner of “dropping all intellectualization and analytical thinking and just chanting Buddha’s name faithfully” is to finally reach Pure Land Shin’s exclusivity against other Buddhism as a result of mirroring its dogma calling “single practice” or “single path”. The principal reason for my joining Shin later was to have thought I would not be able to keep abiding by Buddha’s instructions especially embracing Bodhicitta because I was merely a stupid ordinary man. In other words, I wanted to complement my lack of a firm willingness with Shin’s absolute salvation by Amidah Buddha while I intended to keep practicing Zen. This can be said as an inevitable dilemma, indeed.
Sentient Light
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Sentient Light »

Parsifal wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:36 am In the meanwhile, do Pure Land lineages in other countries appeal for such a fundamental dogma like the one path as Japanese Shin as well? In other words, aren't there any kinds of a tradition like "single practice" or "one path" in other countries?
Not really. In other countries, zen practitioners chant mantras and the nembutsu daily, and pure land practitioners conduct mantrayana rituals and meditation as well. What we do might be better considered "primary practice" and "supplementary practices". As a Pure Land practitioner, my primary practice is buddhanusmrti, which not only includes chanting Amitabha's name, but any Buddha or bodhisattva, depending on circumstances, the chanting of mantras, the visualization of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, etc. As a zen practitioner, I also practice meditation, qigong, and huatou, but these are supplementary to the primary practice of buddhanusmrti.

There is a sort of new reform school in China that is a single-practice Amitabha recitation school. It claims to be the true representation of Shandao's teachings, and is calling itself something like the True Pure Land school (I forget the actual name they're using), but it's very clearly a Chinese attempt at re-constructing Jodo Shinshu, and takes Shinran's interpretation of Shandao (and Tanluan), rather than simply going back to Shandao's complete teachings. But their presence exists mostly on the internet and they don't have a particularly large following, probably because the concept of exclusive practice feels inauthentic to a practitioner of mainland East Asian Buddhism.
:buddha1: Nam mô A di đà Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát :bow:

:buddha1: Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát :bow:
Sentient Light
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Sentient Light »

Parsifal wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 6:23 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 4:52 am
The two paths are remarkably similar in that the practitioner must abandon the comfort of rational thinking.
A scholar I know once referred to pure land Buddhism as “brilliantly stupid” and by the way, this was meant as a compliment. By “stupid” he meant that one has to drop all intellectualization and analytical thinking and just chant Buddha’s name faithfully. As a scholar and an intellectual, he found this to be the only thing to cut through his habitual clinging mindstream.
In this way, it is very much like a zen koan or even a whack from the master’s stick. It knocks you out of your orbit.
I think a manner of “dropping all intellectualization and analytical thinking and just chanting Buddha’s name faithfully” is to finally reach Pure Land Shin’s exclusivity against other Buddhism as a result of mirroring its dogma calling “single practice” or “single path”. The principal reason for my joining Shin later was to have thought I would not be able to keep abiding by Buddha’s instructions especially embracing Bodhicitta because I was merely a stupid ordinary man. In other words, I wanted to complement my lack of a firm willingness with Shin’s absolute salvation by Amidah Buddha while I intended to keep practicing Zen. This can be said as an inevitable dilemma, indeed.
Personally, I think the idea that Pure Landers just chant the name and nothing else is also an artifact of over-emphasizing the Japanese conception of Pure Land, at odds with the mainland perception.

Yes, there is a way of cutting through intellectualizing... we do that through the huatou, "Who is chanting the Buddha's name?", but not necessarily through the nembutsu itself. So I think this comparison of the mainland method of cutting through intellectualizing with SHainran's single practice is a bit reductive.
This can be said as an inevitable dilemma, indeed.
It's not a dilemma unless you make it one. There is absolutely no conflict with making as much progress on the path as possible before entering the Pure Land. There is no conflict in doing both practices simultaneously. There are no contradictions, until the Japanese government forced sectarianism and forced people to think there are contradictions.
:buddha1: Nam mô A di đà Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát :bow:

:buddha1: Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát :bow:
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Zhen Li »

Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:23 pm Personally, I think the idea that Pure Landers just chant the name and nothing else is also an artifact of over-emphasizing the Japanese conception of Pure Land, at odds with the mainland perception.
It's also a misunderstanding of Japanese Pure Land, whether it be Jodo Shu or Jodo Shinshu. In Shin just chanting the name is not as central as listening and shinjin.
Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:23 pm Yes, there is a way of cutting through intellectualizing... we do that through the huatou, "Who is chanting the Buddha's name?", but not necessarily through the nembutsu itself. So I think this comparison of the mainland method of cutting through intellectualizing with SHainran's single practice is a bit reductive.
Charles Jones, in his books, dismantles this idea that mainland/Taiwanese Pure Land is just about Nembutsu huatou. That's a pretty small minority, and I practiced in a Taiwanese Chan/Pure Land tradition for a decade and never encountered it.
Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:19 pm There is a sort of new reform school in China that is a single-practice Amitabha recitation school. It claims to be the true representation of Shandao's teachings, and is calling itself something like the True Pure Land school (I forget the actual name they're using), but it's very clearly a Chinese attempt at re-constructing Jodo Shinshu, and takes Shinran's interpretation of Shandao (and Tanluan), rather than simply going back to Shandao's complete teachings. But their presence exists mostly on the internet and they don't have a particularly large following, probably because the concept of exclusive practice feels inauthentic to a practitioner of mainland East Asian Buddhism.
This narrative that single-practice Amitabha recitation is a new kind of revision is making the rounds on the internet. But it's always been around. It may not have been the majority, however, but is picking up steam. Part of this is driven by what appears to be excessive anti-Japanese Pure Land sentiment.
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:19 pm
Parsifal wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:36 am In the meanwhile, do Pure Land lineages in other countries appeal for such a fundamental dogma like the one path as Japanese Shin as well? In other words, aren't there any kinds of a tradition like "single practice" or "one path" in other countries?
Not really. In other countries, zen practitioners chant mantras and the nembutsu daily, and pure land practitioners conduct mantrayana rituals and meditation as well. What we do might be better considered "primary practice" and "supplementary practices". As a Pure Land practitioner, my primary practice is buddhanusmrti, which not only includes chanting Amitabha's name, but any Buddha or bodhisattva, depending on circumstances, the chanting of mantras, the visualization of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, etc. As a zen practitioner, I also practice meditation, qigong, and huatou, but these are supplementary to the primary practice of buddhanusmrti.

There is a sort of new reform school in China that is a single-practice Amitabha recitation school. It claims to be the true representation of Shandao's teachings, and is calling itself something like the True Pure Land school (I forget the actual name they're using), but it's very clearly a Chinese attempt at re-constructing Jodo Shinshu, and takes Shinran's interpretation of Shandao (and Tanluan), rather than simply going back to Shandao's complete teachings. But their presence exists mostly on the internet and they don't have a particularly large following, probably because the concept of exclusive practice feels inauthentic to a practitioner of mainland East Asian Buddhism.
Thank you for your showing a current status of Pure Land in east Asian countries. As a result of knowing it, I seem necessarily to change my perspective against what Pure Land is, especially Shin. I did not know Pure Land in Japan was so different from those of other countries. Perhaps most of Japanese Buddhist including me do not notice such background even though we have an opportunity to learn in general outline to the extent that Japanese Pure Land was established first by Honen who was influenced by Chinese predecessors such as Shandao and Tanluan etc..
I am not sure if Japanese teaching monks know a status on then Chinese Pure Land which Honen introduced to Japan, but we learn only a status describing after Honen introduced Pure Land.
According to teaching monks, we learned Shinran seemed a pretty faithful follower to Honen, and there seemed not so significant difference in both dogmas except Shinran’s stressing on abandoning the human’s intentional discretion.
There seems no other way but to read books referring to Pure Land’s history both in China and Japan. This must be pretty hard for me indeed.
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

Zhen Li wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:43 am
Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:23 pm Personally, I think the idea that Pure Landers just chant the name and nothing else is also an artifact of over-emphasizing the Japanese conception of Pure Land, at odds with the mainland perception.
It's also a misunderstanding of Japanese Pure Land, whether it be Jodo Shu or Jodo Shinshu. In Shin just chanting the name is not as central as listening and shinjin.
Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:23 pm Yes, there is a way of cutting through intellectualizing... we do that through the huatou, "Who is chanting the Buddha's name?", but not necessarily through the nembutsu itself. So I think this comparison of the mainland method of cutting through intellectualizing with SHainran's single practice is a bit reductive.
Charles Jones, in his books, dismantles this idea that mainland/Taiwanese Pure Land is just about Nembutsu huatou. That's a pretty small minority, and I practiced in a Taiwanese Chan/Pure Land tradition for a decade and never encountered it.
Sentient Light wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:19 pm There is a sort of new reform school in China that is a single-practice Amitabha recitation school. It claims to be the true representation of Shandao's teachings, and is calling itself something like the True Pure Land school (I forget the actual name they're using), but it's very clearly a Chinese attempt at re-constructing Jodo Shinshu, and takes Shinran's interpretation of Shandao (and Tanluan), rather than simply going back to Shandao's complete teachings. But their presence exists mostly on the internet and they don't have a particularly large following, probably because the concept of exclusive practice feels inauthentic to a practitioner of mainland East Asian Buddhism.
This narrative that single-practice Amitabha recitation is a new kind of revision is making the rounds on the internet. But it's always been around. It may not have been the majority, however, but is picking up steam. Part of this is driven by what appears to be excessive anti-Japanese Pure Land sentiment.
First of all, as you know well, since I am a non-native English user, I found not a few phrases of yours in these messages understand hard for me. So you may think me so coward or roundabout but please allow my being cautious.

Do you mean Japanese Pure Land lineage Buddhists cannot judge which is a genuine one either Jodo Shu or Jodo Shinshu ?

Does Charles Jones mean mainland/Taiwanese Pure Land is no less Nembitsu huatou?
What do you mean with the term of “excessive anti-Japanese Pure Land sentiment”? Do you mean part of some people doing single-practice Amitabha recitation are motivated by “excessive anti-Japanese Pure Land sentiment”? If so, why does such sentiment arise?

Last of all, we learned Honen had established Japanese Pure Land in order for even ordinary people without extra knowledge and talent to do daily practice easily. As well, Shinran aimed at having proceeded with further as one of faithful follower of Honen despite not a minor difference seen. Reviewing Japanese Pure Land this way, I think it quite natural for Japanese people to reach “single path” or “single practice”. At the same time, to the contrary, I wonder why other countries did not pass a similar course as ours.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Zhen Li »

Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:47 am First of all, as you know well, since I am a non-native English user, I found not a few phrases of yours in these messages understand hard for me. So you may think me so coward or roundabout but please allow my being cautious.
Thank you for letting me know, I was not aware of that.
Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:47 am Do you mean Japanese Pure Land lineage Buddhists cannot judge which is a genuine one either Jodo Shu or Jodo Shinshu ?
No, I am suggesting that recitaiton of the Name alone is not the only thing done in Jodo Shu or Jodo Shinshu. They are "single practice" schools, but there are many rituals, recitations, and important practices that complement the Nembutsu. In Shin, there's the added dimention that we don't recite the Nembutsu as a self-power practice, but instead come to receive Shinjin through deep listening.
Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:47 am Does Charles Jones mean mainland/Taiwanese Pure Land is no less Nembitsu huatou?
No, just that the typical practice is more devotional and less self-reflective.
Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:47 am What do you mean with the term of “excessive anti-Japanese Pure Land sentiment”? Do you mean part of some people doing single-practice Amitabha recitation are motivated by “excessive anti-Japanese Pure Land sentiment”? If so, why does such sentiment arise?
No, I mean there's a lot of kickback at the moment on internet forums against Japanese interpretations, which are not properly informed and seem rather knee-jerk.
Parsifal wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:47 am Last of all, we learned Honen had established Japanese Pure Land in order for even ordinary people without extra knowledge and talent to do daily practice easily. As well, Shinran aimed at having proceeded with further as one of faithful follower of Honen despite not a minor difference seen. Reviewing Japanese Pure Land this way, I think it quite natural for Japanese people to reach “single path” or “single practice”. At the same time, to the contrary, I wonder why other countries did not pass a similar course as ours.
This connects to the previous point. There are Taiwanese schools that have "single practice" approaches. Some of these are being dismissed as simply being influenced by Japanese sects. While cross-pollination is definitely something that happens, this denies agency to those schools who chose to take that approach. So, it is something that exists in other countries.
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Kai lord »

Chan vs Pure land?

Well the most popular argument I have seen the Chan people rise is along the line of "Whats with the need to pray for rebirth into Amitabha's pure land when you can simply train to view Saha world as the Pure land? "

Of course this does not dent the Pure landers' faith a bit as they simply humbly admit that the level of cultivation is too far beyond their current capacity and then continue with their daily recitation, so no big debate or fight came out of it much to the disappointment of some Zen lovers. :rolling:
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
Shinjin
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:44 pm

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Shinjin »

Kai lord wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:47 pm Chan vs Pure land?

Well the most popular argument I have seen the Chan people rise is along the line of "Whats with the need to pray for rebirth into Amitabha's pure land when you can simply train to view Saha world as the Pure land? "

Of course this does not dent the Pure landers' faith a bit as they simply humbly admit that the level of cultivation is too far beyond their current capacity and then continue with their daily recitation, so no big debate or fight came out of it much to the disappointment of some Zen lovers. :rolling:
All the power to the zennies who are able to see this saha world as a pure land. That takes some serious dedication.
Parsifal
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:36 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Parsifal »

Kai lord wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:47 pm Chan vs Pure land?

Well the most popular argument I have seen the Chan people rise is along the line of "Whats with the need to pray for rebirth into Amitabha's pure land when you can simply train to view Saha world as the Pure land? "

Of course this does not dent the Pure landers' faith a bit as they simply humbly admit that the level of cultivation is too far beyond their current capacity and then continue with their daily recitation, so no big debate or fight came out of it much to the disappointment of some Zen lovers. :rolling:
What an ironical opinion you have! If even an ordinary people in addition to Chan believer could view Saha as Pure Land, no religion must get unnecessary. Does "the level of cultivation is too far beyond" mean that true faith to Amitabh itself is too hard for Pure Landers to keep retaining actually? As well, why are Zen lovers disappointed with it?
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Why aren’t there discussions about Zen vs. Pure Land?

Post by Kai lord »

Parsifal wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:46 am
Kai lord wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:47 pm Chan vs Pure land?

Well the most popular argument I have seen the Chan people rise is along the line of "Whats with the need to pray for rebirth into Amitabha's pure land when you can simply train to view Saha world as the Pure land? "

Of course this does not dent the Pure landers' faith a bit as they simply humbly admit that the level of cultivation is too far beyond their current capacity and then continue with their daily recitation, so no big debate or fight came out of it much to the disappointment of some Zen lovers. :rolling:
What an ironical opinion you have! If even an ordinary people in addition to Chan believer could view Saha as Pure Land, no religion must get unnecessary.
Thats the whole point since ordinary people can't do that, hence they must train hard.
Does "the level of cultivation is too far beyond" mean that true faith to Amitabha itself is too hard for Pure Landers to keep retaining actually?
No, you got it the other way around. That level of cultivation refers to Zen's proposal of training to view this Saha universe as Pure.
As well, why are Zen lovers disappointed with it?
Don't know, maybe you should ask them in person if you ever got the opportunity. :tongue:
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”