Chapter 14.
The Traditional Structure of Shinran's Thought
Shinran rooted his teachings in the Pure Land
tradition by tracing the lineage of his thought back through seven
patriarchs, a system in which he paid special tribute to his immediate
teacher Honen, to Shan-tao, and to Sakyamuni himself. The development of
Mahayana tradition required that it justify itself over and against the
Hinayana Buddhists who believed they had the original teachings of
Buddhism. Thus, it is particularly in Mahayana that lineages of the
transmission of the teaching were formed. In such a system of lineage,
enlightenment is to be transferred as water, from cup to cup without
losing a drop.
New aspects or interpretations (as was Shinran's)
become possible through the view of this lineage as an evolution of
doctrine and thought. Mechanisms for dealing with creative change, and
progress in the teaching responding to the times, are not so clear in
primitive Buddhism. In this sense, the Pure Land tradition appears to be
more open, emphasizing that the teaching must correspond to both the
person and the times (jikisoo). This sense of the reality of time and
its relation to the development of the teaching is due in all
probability to the Chinese sense of history, and was a conclusion
derived from the observation of the inapplicability of the ideals of
Buddhism for the masses in a time of disruption and in ages and places
(such as China) long distant from the Buddha. The hoben, the means by
which the Dharma is brought to all beings, was regarded by the
Hinayanaists as a novelty introduced by the founders and developers of
Mahayana. In addition, the Mahayanists also formulated an expansion in
the number of previous Buddhas in an attempt to show that it was not the
truth of Mahayana Buddhism that was a novelty, but that this truth had
been given by all the Buddhas of the past, as well as it will be by
future Buddhas. The means -- hoben -- of compassion was the Mahayana
departure from Hinayana tradition.
Buddhism, wherever it appears, Mahayana or Hinayana,
Southeast Asia, Japan or Hawaii, is highly traditional and this
traditionalism is one of the factors that makes it difficult for
Buddhism to change in the face of modern problems. Although this change
factor is specifically a social-institutional question, it suggests a
feature which needs to be explored further in relation to Shinran, his
thought, and the institutions which have been built on increasingly
rigid specifications of the structure of his symbolism, faith and
tradition. Shinran's approach to the linkage of his thought in Buddhist
tradition has much in common with other schools which have attempted to
establish their basis in Buddhist history through a patriarchal lineage.
In the case of Zen, for example, twenty-eight patriarchs are cited from
the passing of the flower of Mahakassyapa to Bodhidharma. From
Bodhidharma there were then counted a series of Chinese patriarchs, of
which the most famous was Hui-neng, who is the sixth.
Shinran's perspective, however, has implications which
go beyond previous teachers, to be a genuine leap forward to a new
perception of truth. These implications are of importance and relevance
for our own lives today. Shinran set forth his particular line of
tradition in the famous "Shoshinge," (Hymn of True Faith), in the Practice
volume of the "Kyogyoshinsho," and in his hymns composed in praise of the
patriarchs in the "Kosowasan." The "Shoshinge" was later published
separately by Rennyo and spread widely in Japan. Its publication
popularized the tradition through its concentrated and clear outlining
of the essentials of Shinshu.
When we compare the general idea of the development of
Pure Land teaching as represented in Honen's "Senchaku-Nembutsushu," we
see simply that the Pure Land critical classification of doctrine grew
out of a series of distinctions, each provided by one of the teachers
and brought to completion by Shan tao. In this tradition Nagarjuna
reputedly distinguished two paths in Buddhism; the difficult and the
easy. Vasubandhu contributed the principle of single-mindedness.
T'an-luan made a distinction of self power and Other Power, while Tao-ch'o
introduced the terms Sage Path or Way of Saints and Pure Land Gate.
Shan-tao brought the many threads of consideration together to formulate
a system focusing on the practice of Nembutsu and the appropriate
attitudes which should accompany it. He distinguished clearly the
practices offered to all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as mixed and as right
practices those offered only to Amida Buddha. The recitation of Nembutsu
became the right practice among all other right practices. Others were
assisting practices. Then, with Honen, this right practice became the
Senju or sole practice. The assisting practices were now excluded by
Honen.
Through such an evolution, the principle of vocal
recitation as the means for achieving rebirth and enlightenment in the
Pure Land was reached. Such interpretations strengthened the impact of
Pure Land thought on the masses, for this was considered as the way of
easy practice which the non-scholar, the non-intellectual, the
householder living the everyday life, could follow. The earlier
understanding of Nembutsu had been that it was merely one possible way
for people lacking the capacity for more profound discipline, but with
Honen's affirmation of the practice as the only way, a fundamental
change in the attitude towards Nembutsu practice occurred. It became
absolute -- the only way not just for inferior people, but for everyone.
With Shinran, the focus of attention changed, partly
due to his own intellectual capacity and the nature of his experience,
and perhaps also from criticism arising from other schools. In
traditional Buddhism, the basis of Buddhist practice was rooted in the
aspiration for enlightenment; the arousing of a mind to seek bodhi, the
bodhi-citta. The model was Gautama, who -- before he left his father's
palace -- had become aroused to seek enlightenment through his
observation of illness, old age, and death, the suffering of humankind,
the reality from which his father had tried to shield him. The awareness
that all this would in time, or perhaps at any moment with illness or
death, happen to him too, spurred Gautama to leave home, leave his
position in life, and as a wandering ascetic, to seek enlightenment. In
many biographies of later famous Buddhist monks, similar conditions are
depicted which led to their embarking on serious Buddhist practice. Such
situations as were manifest in the pattern of Prince Siddartha Gautama's
decision become the turning point whereby the individual makes a
decisive resolution to seek Buddhahood.
Later, in the development of Pure Land Buddhism, Shan
tao correlated the practice of Nembutsu to the attitudes and motives
validating that practice. He indicated that the principle of anjin, or
faith, (literally, "quieting the heart") meant to have three
minds: the sincere mind, the deep mind, and a mind desiring to be born
in the Pure Land with transfer of merit to that end. In addition, Shan
tao outlined a variety of attitudes relating to the way in which the
various practices were to be carried out, so that while there was now a
practice available to the common man to achieve rebirth, he had to have
the appropriate spiritual or attitudinal motivation to be able to
effectuate that Nembutsu.
With Honen, another shift took place. Whereas the
various minds had to accompany the Nembutsu for Shan tao, for Honen they
were not at all consciously necessary. Rather, they would arise
naturally out of the constant practice of the Nembutsu. To many people
of his time, Honen appeared to reject the basic Buddhist principle of
bodhi-citta and those aspects which would maintain Nembutsu as a truly
spiritual practice.
It is at this point that Shinran offered his
contribution. From his own experience, he recognized with Honen that one
cannot ever be sure that he is sincere, that he has sufficient faith or,
as in the case with Yuienbo's lack of desire for Pure Land, [1] that one
can really overcome his attachment to this world. Hence, to require
these aspects of mind, even though the practice was simple and easy, was
still to place considerable obstacles in front of the common man and
shut him off from Amida's compassion and the assurance of salvation.
Also perceived by Shinran was the fact that the foundation of Buddhism
lies in a deep spiritual resolve and motivation to attain rebirth or
enlightenment. He synthesized his two insights by maintaining that in a
mysterious way, through hearing Amida Buddha's name and becoming aware
of his compassion, faith is aroused -- a faith which is not based on
human contrivance, but a faith which wells up because it is in fact a
gift of Amida to the person. It is the transfer of his True Mind to the
person; the process of which is the Buddha-nature which is in us, the
potential to become Buddha with which each living being is endowed,
being awakened within us.
Thus Shinran describes the mind which aspires for
birth in the Pure Land not as a self-generated faith, but as a
spontaneous faith, naturally arising in our minds. It is this which
gives rise to the practice of Nembutsu as the response of gratitude for
this gift of faith aroused in a spontaneous, natural way through Amida
Buddha's compassion. Consequently, in the preface to his volume on
Faith, Shinran writes:
"As I contemplate matters, I see that the
acquirement of Serene Faith arises out of the Tathagata's Selected Vow,
and that the awakening of True Mind is made possible by the
compassionate, skillful means of the Great Sage." [2]
Later, in discussing the issue of the three minds,
Shinran notes that each of these minds itself, is a gift of Amida:
"The Tathagata endows His Sincere Mind to the sea
of all the multitudinous beings filled with evil passions" [3]
"The essence of the Serene Faith is the Sincere
Mind endowed by the Other Power." [4]
And, finally, he writes:
"... The substance of the Desire for Birth is
the True, Serene Faith. Indeed, this is not (the mind of)
merit-transference with self-power as conceived by Mahayanist or
Hinayanist, common men or sages, or meditative or non-meditative
persons; hence. It is called '(the mind of)
non-merit-transference.'" [5]
With the foundation of these thoughts as background,
the question may arise, how does that faith, those minds, come to us? It
is here that tradition functions in an extremely important way for
Shinran and is also particularly relevant to contemporary discussion in
religion. In trying to understand how faith may come to us, it is not by
accident, I believe, that the "Shoshinge" -- which reviews the progress of
the Shinshu tradition in history -- is placed at the end of the volume
on Practice in the "Kyogyoshinsho." As is pointed out in the introduction
to the translation of the text:
"The Shoshin-Ge is placed at the end of the
chapter on Practice, and it serves as the hinge connecting the two
chapters, i.e., between Practice and Faith. By these facts therefore, we
can easily understand the important role played by this gatha.
"Actually, the interpretation of 'gyo' (practice) and
'shin' (faith) and the relation between the two had been the central
subjects of controversy among the disciples of Honen Shonin. Most of
them failed to grasp the master's true meaning of the Nembutsu and took
the term 'gyo' to mean man's oral utterance of the Nembutsu (Namu-Amida-Butsu).
This interpretation, when combined with the idea of 'self' effort,
tended toward the misunderstanding of the true spirit of salvation by
Amida's Power. Shinran, one of the disciples of Honen, made it clear
that 'gyo' is not the practice based on man's effort but the Buddha's
Work originating in his Vow." [6]
This is to say, our Birth in the Pure Land is gained
through His Work (i.e., the merits of Amida's Name) given to us and not
through our merit of practicing the Nembutsu. And 'shin' in Shinran's
interpretation refers to Amida's mind given to us and not the faith
which is based on man's mental effort. Practice and Faith thus conceived
by Shinran constitute the basic character of Shinshu doctrine.
Historically, the practice of recitation of the
Name-with-universal-meaning is based on the 17th Vow, which
states:
"If, upon my attaining Buddhahood, all the
innumerable Buddhas in the ten quarters were not approvingly to
pronounce my Name, may I not attain the Supreme Enlightenment." [7]
By viewing the historical appearance and development
of the Pure Land tradition as virtually the fulfillment of this Vow,
Pure Land becomes not simply a popular tradition which draws its
justification from the fact that it suits popular temperament, but is
given a foundation within the process of Amida's Vows, as the
manifestation of the evolution of Buddha's universal compassion. Despite
all differences among the various teachings in the Pure Land tradition,
and regardless of the fact that the original texts do not specifically
yield Shinran's interpretation, in his understanding he maintained an
essential unity among the Pure Land teachers by his representation of
them as links in the historical realization of compassion.
In relation to this interpretation by Shinran, there
are two features which require attention. The tradition must be viewed
both in terms of its surface meaning, and of its inner meaning. In his
discussion of the sutra, Shinran notes:
"Truly I know that this sutra has thus the
implicit and explicit aspects. Herewith, I show whether the Three Minds
in the two Sutras are the same or different; this is to be well
discerned. The Larger Sutra and the Meditation Sutra are different in
their explicit aspect, but they are the same in their implicit
aspect." [8]
Using principles which Prof. Bando describes in
his "Zettai Kie no Hyogen" (pp. 253-58) as kensho -- and onmitsu -- Shinran
thus reconciled the disparate aspects of the Pure Land tradition and
created a unity. Shin tradition also developed the means to reconcile
Shinran's individual and creative approach to varying emphases in Pure
Land teaching. This was the relationship between dento, or Tradition,
and kosho, the individual insight which Shinran developed. On the
surface, the tradition seems to contradict what Shinran teaches, but
when explored deeply, in its implicit aspect, this is not the case.
In essence, the contribution of Shinran and the
unifying tradition of Shin Buddhism, is a philosophy of history which
attempts to recognize change while at the same time maintaining a
fundamental unity to show that history is working out of the Buddha's
Vows, not merely a chance happening or something unreal, but a process
with its roots in the absolute. This absolute is not disconnected from
life, but manifests itself in the sphere of human existence as a moving
force striving for deeper realization in persons and stimulating within
them the spontaneous commitment of faith. History, for Shinran, is a
spiritual process leading to enlightenment.
This perspective is important in the light of our
earlier portrayal comparing Shinran's response to history with that of
other Kamakura Buddhists. Shinran lived history through. The basis for
the acceptance of history, and of life as we encounter it, is the fact
that it is embraced by Amida's compassion. There is no need to leave the
historical sphere of finite and daily existence to discover that
compassion. Once our eyes have been opened to perceive it, it confronts
us at every turn in our everyday lives. In the contemporary period,
there is a struggle for people to discover the meaning of existence, and
their own identity within historical existence. The mass, urban,
technological society threatens to deprive us of our personal meaning
through subjection to means and techniques which turn humans into
objects to be disposed of at will by superior powers.
Shinran's theory of the Vows and history, and his
interpretation of Pure Land tradition, suggests that the meaning of
existence is that we ourselves also become a channel whereby the
compassion of Amida Buddha is present in history. In our time and at all
times, we are the Buddhas praising the name in the Seventeenth Vow.
Perhaps, through extending the meaning of the term "praise,"
we could include many forms of action in the world which are indeed
manifestations and revelations of the compassion of Amida.
Shinran has thus taken up within his own context the
profound problem of the emergence of the absolute in history, which at
once raises the value of history, and makes the experience of the
absolute a reality of history. This view which Shinran offers us
heightens the importance of tradition, while at the same time keeps it
open for further change. Truth is enmeshed in history, but it must also
transcend it. If truth is merely a historical product, it loses its
capacity to hold our conviction and maintain vitality in illuminating
issues of concern to humanity. Therefore, it must represent and point to
something which lies beyond our perceptible history which is subject to
apparent cause and effect of the finite order. Without a root in the
absolute, truth simply becomes relative. Change for the sake of change
and novelty loses its meaning unless that change or innovation
represents a deeper perception of a truth that has always been present
in a tradition.
In the evolution of Pure Land thought, there was a
broadening and a deepening as it became more universal and spiritual in
approach to religious action and life, a development brought to its peak
by Shinran. Without the background of the existing tradition (in his
Kamakura period), his own awareness and process of thought would not
have been stimulated to look deeper. If he had ignored tradition, and
merely created his interpretation alone, it could hardly have attracted
attention.
Shinran is often depicted as a radical, and a radical
in the truest sense of the word is one who goes to the roots. He was not
a radical as the word is used negatively in our own day, to label
someone who seems to cut things off at the root, rather than cultivate
those roots. In his challenge to the Buddhist tradition, Shinran rooted
his views in that tradition, thus, his having removed Pure Land thought
from the sphere of simple hoben, made it universal in time and space.
For Shinran, though the Pure Land teaching was devised for people in the
last age of the Dharma, it was applicable beyond that framework, and so
he points out:
"How sad it is that the common and ignorant men
with defilement and hindrances, from beginningless time up to the
present, have had no opportunity for deliverance because of their
inclination to perform Auxiliary Acts and the Right Act indiscriminantly
and practice the meditative and non-meditative good. When we reflect
upon our cyclic transmigration, we find it difficult, even in the
passage of infinite kalpas, to turn to the Buddha's Vow-Power for refuge
and enter the Sea of Great Faith. We should indeed lament it and deeply
deplore it. As sages of Mahayana and Hinayana and all the good men make
(the utterance of) the Blessed Name of the Original Vow their own good,
they cannot attain Faith or believe in the Buddha's Wisdom. As they are
ignorant of the Buddha's purport of establishing the cause (for Birth),
they cannot enter the Recompensed Land." [9]
Later, Shinran indicates that the practice of the Path
of the Sages cannot apply to the decadent age, while the Pure Land Gate
applies to any age:
"Indeed, we know that the various teachings of
the Path of Sages are practicable for the Buddha's time and the Age of
Right Dharma and not for the Ages of Semblance Dharma, Decadent Dharma
and Extinct Dharma. The time for those teachings has already passed and
they do not agree with the capacities of sentient beings. Whereas, the
True Teaching of the Pure Land compassionately leads to the Way the
defiled and evil multitudes in the Ages of Semblance Dharma, Decadent
Dharma and Extinct Dharma, as well as those in the Buddha's time and the
Age of Right Dharma." [10]
Shinran has thus reversed the usual understanding of
Buddhist practice. While other traditions of Buddhism regard the ancient
practice of meditation as in the case of Dogen applicable in any age,
the Pure Land doctrine was a teaching primarily for weak persons of the
last age. Shinran, however, sees that in actuality other practices are
merely preparatory to entering the Pure Land Gate, as the failure to
gain enlightenment through any of these other practices becomes
realized. The Pure Land way is thus the supreme teaching for all time,
in his view.
We may suggest here that this approach is sound in
terms of Buddhist symbolism, since it is hardly likely that human nature
changed significantly in the few thousand years of Buddhist history to
justify the alteration of Buddhist practice in the way Honen did.
Shinran was more perceptive perhaps than his teacher in realizing that
the human problem is universal in time and space. Egoism and pride
infect people in every age and distort their religious endeavors. For
Shinran, Pure Land teaching correlates to the perennial human problem,
and not merely to the changes of history. In this way the teaching
became more absolute as "the" Truth rather than "a"
Truth or, more properly, as "the" Gate rather than
"a" Gate, to the Truth.
Shinran's creative treatment of tradition further
suggests the deep existential roots of his experience and thought. As he
grappled with his own personal problems and came to understand
realistically and truthfully his own condition, he saw more keenly into
the implications of Pure Land thought and through his existential
insights, established the tradition on a sounder spiritual and
philosophical basis. In terms of past developments of Pure Land, he gave
an answer to the numerous problems that had faced believers.
Unfortunately, he was extraordinarily subtle in doing this, so that in
the course of history, the real meaning of his thought has never worked
the reformation of which it was and is capable.
Multiple Choice Questions
1. For which of the following reasons was the system
of lineage of the transmission of the teaching formed?
a) in China the concept of lineage was so important
that it was absorbed into the Buddhist tradition b) the Mahayana Buddhists had to justify the development of their
tradition in the eyes of the Hinayana Buddhists c) a lineage is necessary for the transmission of
enlightenment
2. For Honen, the recitation of the Nembutsu was:
a) one right practice among many b) only for people
who lacked the capacity for more rigorous disciplines c) the sole practice for
everyone
3. For Shinran, the Nembutsu was:
a) a response of gratitude toward Amida b) a practice that required the right
attitude c) the easy Path 4. Bodhi-citta is a term that refers
to the:
a) assurance of salvation b) arousing of the mind to seek
enlightenment c) Buddha's seat at the base of the Bodhi tree
5. Shinran resolved the problem of the relationship
between practice and faith with the understanding that:
a) practice is based on man's effort b) faith arises from uttering the
Nembutsu ceaselessly c) faith is Amida's mind given to us
6. Which of the following statements best describes
Shinran's philosophy of history? That it:
a) has no purpose since everything happens by chance
b) is unrelated to Amida Buddha c) is a spiritual process leading to
enlightenment
7. To which of the following ages did Shinran think
the Pure Land way applied?
a) the mappo age alone b) any age c) the period during which Shinran
lived
8. Which of the following is not true? That
Shinran:
a) believed there were many paths to the truth b) considered the Pure Land to be the supreme teaching for all
time c) realized that egoism is a universal human problem
Thought Questions
1. In this chapter you have studied the evolution of
religious thought, specifically that of the Pure Land. What observations
have you made in regard to the process as a whole? What does this tell
you about the nature of man's search for truth?
2. How does Shinran's approach to the Pure Land differ
from that of Honen's? Why is Shinran's view of the relationship between
faith and practice unique?
3. The author says that "truth is enmeshed in
history, but it must also transcend it." What are your thoughts
regarding this? Do you think that truth must transcend history?
Bibliography
Bloom, Alfred: "Shinran's Gospel of Pure Grace," pp.
7-25
Bloom, Alfred: "Shoshinge: The Heart of Shin
Buddhism" Ryukoku University Translation
Series: "Shoshinge" Shigefuji, Shinei:
"Nembutsu in Shinran and His
Teachers: A Comparison"
Notes
[1] "Tannisho" 9
[2] Ryukoku Translation Series, "Kyogyoshinsho," p.
84 [3] Ibid., p. 10 [4] Ibid., p.
106 [5] Ibid., p. 109 [6] Ryukoku Translation Series,
"Shoshinge," p. 6 [7] Translated by D.T. Suzuki,
"Collected Works on Shin
Buddhism," p. 338 [8] Ryukoku Translation
Series, "Kyogyoshinsho," p. 173,
also pp. 169, 167, 190-91 [9] Ibid., p. 196 [10] Ibid., p.
198 |
