Honen and Shinran:
Loyalty and Independence
by
Dr. Alfred Bloom, Emeritus Professor of Religion, University of Hawai’i
Introduction
From
the time that I first began to study Shinran, I have been interested in his
relationship with Honen. This interest was aroused by Shinran's claim that
he simply followed his teacher Honen and transmitted his teaching correctly,
resulting in the eventual application of the term Jōdo Shinshū (that
is, True Teaching [Essence] of the Pure Land Way) to his movement in
later times. Shinran never proposed that he started a new school. For him,
the Jōdo Shinshū meant the teaching of Honen.
Yet,
it is interesting to note that Shinran takes issue with other disciples of
Honen, but never with the teacher himself. In view of Shinran's claim to be
a faithful disciple of Honen, we would therefore expect to find a close
identity with his teachings in Shinran's writings, if it was only a matter
of correct transmission. However, crucial features of Shinran's teaching are
not found in Honen's writings.
To
reconcile the differences, it has been asserted in the Shin tradition that
Shinran carried forward Honen's true intention or spirit. Also the
distinction of tradition and personal insight is invoked (dentō to koshō)
which suggests a dialectical relation between tradition and religious
experience.
In
this essay, I will explore major aspects of the relationship of tradition
and personal insight as it relates to Shinran's interpretation of Honen's
teaching. Due to space considerations, a full study is not possible. I will,
however, attempt to clarify the relation of Shinran's understanding of Pure
Land Buddhism and Honen's, basing my explanation on the thesis that, while
Shinran had a close personal relationship and devotion to Honen, after the
teacher and disciple separated as a result of their exile and Honen's death,
Shinran's thought continued to evolve, sustained by his experiences living
and working among the common people in eastern Japan. Shinran constantly
maintained his loyalty to Honen and exalted him. However, he went beyond
Honen's compassionate and inclusive understanding of Pure Land teaching
based on his own religious experience and reflection. As a result, he
interpreted the teachings to provide a stronger theoretical foundation to
support the principle of sole practice of nembutsu.
Shinran's Personal Relation with Honen
The traditional Shin Buddhist view of the relationship
between Honen and Shinran rests on Shinran's own affirmation that he truly
represents Honen's teaching. Yet, it is interesting that Shinran does not
appear among the disciples of Honen traditionally accepted by the Jōdoshū
itself. Rather, he has been regarded as heretical, creating a problem in
understanding the relation of Shinran and Honen for modern scholars.
Nevertheless, the discovery of the letters of Eshin‑ni, Shinran's wife, in
1921, settled once and for all the question of Shinran's historical relation
to Honen. Further, the name Shakku, which, according to Shinran, had been
given to him by Honen, appears among the signers in the “Seven Point
Declaration” (Shichikajō kishōmon) presented by Honen to the
authorities of Mount Hiei in 1204 to meet their complaints about improper
activities and attitudes of his disciples. These historical evidences of
connection to Honen lent greater credibility to Shinran's own account of his
relationship to his teacher described in Volume VI of the “Kyō gyō shin shō,”
Shinran's major treatise, where he describes the event of his copying
Honen's “Senchakushū” and drawing a portrait of Honen.
According to a letter of Shinran's wife, Eshin‑ni, to her daughter Kakushin‑ni,
Shinran had been a dōsō, a type of temple priest, functioning in the
Jōgyozammaidō, or Hall of Perpetual Nembutsu on Mount Hiei. However,
he became so concerned for his future deliverance that he secluded himself
in the Rokkakudō where he received a visionary message from Prince
Shotoku that led him to Honen. Through this meeting with Honen and his
subsequent study for some six years, Shinran received spiritual peace, which
he attributed to the guidance and assurance given him by Honen. From that
point, Shinran regarded himself a faithful disciple of Honen and dedicated
himself to sharing that compassion and teaching with others. To a question
presented by his disciples, Shinran replied: "As for me, I simply accept and
entrust myself to what my revered teacher told me, 'Just say the nembutsu
and be saved by Amida'; nothing else is involved."
Shinran provides more detail on his relation to Honen in the “Kyō gyō shin
sho” where he indicates that he was permitted to copy the “Senchaku hongan
nembutsu shū” (“Senchakushū”), Honen's epochal work. Shinran wrote:
“Over
the days and years, myriads of people received the master's teaching, but
whether they were closely associated or remained more distant, very few
gained the opportunity to read and copy this book. Nevertheless, I was in
fact able to copy it and to paint his portrait. This was the virtue of
practicing the right act alone, and the manifestation of the decisive
settlement of birth.” [1]
Shortly thereafter they were separated because of the proscription of the
group by the government, as punishment for alleged crimes by certain
disciples and criticisms of the monastic institutions of Mount Hiei and Nara
Kofukuji. While Honen went to Tosa in Shikoku, Shinran went to Echigo in
northern Japan, and they never met again.
In
addition to his personal account, Shinran avers his connection to Honen in a
famous passage in the “Tannishō” where he sees himself in the direct line of
transmission from Amida Buddha, Sakyamuni, Shan‑tao, Honen to Shinran. [2]
He praises and exalts Honen in the “Kyō gyō shin shō” in his Hymn on the
Nembutsu of True Faith (Shōshinge):
“Master Genku, well‑versed in the Buddha's teaching,
Turned compassionately to foolish people, both good and evil;
Establishing in this remote land the teaching and realization that
are the
true essence of the Pure Land way,
He transmit the selected Primal Vow to us of the defiled world;
Return to this house of transmigration, of birth‑and‑death,
Is decidedly caused by doubt.
Swift entrance into the city of tranquility, the uncreated,
Is necessarily brought about by shinjin.”
He
also extols Honen in detail in his poems on the “Seven Great Teachers” (Kōsō
wasan). I cannot quote the whole series of verses, but Shinran declares
that the true Pure Land teaching (jōdo shinshū) was spread in Japan
during mappō by Honen who was highly revered by other Pure Land
teachers and respected by the Chancellor Kujo Kanezane. Honen was widely
viewed as a reincarnation of the great Chinese Pure Land teachers, Tao‑ch'o
or Shan‑tao and a manifestation of Seishi Bosatsu (Mahasthamaprapta
Bodhisattva), as well as even Amida Buddha. Shinran emphasizes that
Honen had a distinct concern for the masses of ordinary people.
“Genku emanated a radiance
Which he always revealed to his followers,
Without discriminating between wise and ignorant
Or between those of high station or low.” (110)
In
addition, there are also stories of disputes in Shin tradition where Shinran
argued points of faith with other disciples while they were in Yoshimizu.
While Honen agreed with Shinran according to these accounts, the historical
status of these stories is not clear, since they only appear within the Shin
tradition. [3]
In
the first case, the issue is the reception of faith as a gift of Amida,
clearly advocated by Shinran. Honen is said to have sided with Shinran. The
second case deals with the issue of attaining rebirth in this life in our
present bodies and the rejection of the raigō doctrine of the last
moment, also a major point of Shinran's teaching, in contrast to the
principle that we attain birth when we die and experience the raigō.
Honen notes that while both these views concerning rebirth and raigō
have bases in scriptures, the former is the principle of the person who
adheres to the Primal Vow or nembutsu ōjō and the second is the
principle of the way of rebirth through the many Buddhist practices or
shogyō ōjō. While Honen does not take a clear position in this matter,
seeing it as a matter of previous karma and the differences in the capacity
of people, the implication is that rebirth based in the Primal Vow would be
the superior position. As these stories indicate, Shinran frequently
emphasized his unity with his master by invoking Honen's authority as the
basis for his teaching, while asserting his criticism of other
representatives of Honen.
It is
interesting to note that in his “Kyō gyō shin shō,” Shinran quotes minimally
from Honen, employing two passages out of some 403. Nevertheless, he
expresses a high estimate of the text:
“The crucial elements of
the true essence of the Pure Land way and the inner significance of the
nembutsu have been gathered into this work, which is easily understoood by
those who read it. It is a truly luminous writing, rare and excellent; a
treasured scripture, supreme and profound.”
Despite the disparity between Shinran's regard for the text and the number
of citations in his own work, Honen's work was no less authoritative for
Shinran. Rather, it more indicates that Shinran was also an equally
independent thinker, and in his loyalty to his teaching as far‑ranging in
his search for materials to support his interpretations of Honen's thought.
Shinran as Exponent of Honen
I
have used the term "exponent" here rather than "defender" because Shinran
does not openly present himself as a defender of Honen against such critics
as Myoe (1173‑1232). However, the content of the “Kyō gyō shin shō” may be
better understood as Shinran's reaction to those criticisms as a disciple of
Honen, as well as a declaration of his own faith. He attempts to present
Honen's fundamental perspective, but does not simply replicate his thought.
Rather than presenting himself as interpreting the “Senchakushū” in
particular, Shinran gathers a variety of textual supports from Pure Land
tradition in India, China and Japan, as well as Korean sources, to establish
the primacy of Amida's name (myōgō), nembutsu and shinjin/true
entrusting taught by the 18th Vow.
It is
useful also to see him taking seriously the critique made by Myoe, and
integrating the principle of Bodhi‑mind (bodaishin) with the teaching
of exclusive practice of the nembutsu advocated by Honen without referring
either to Honen's apparent rejection of the principle or to Myoe's views. In
working out his interpretation of Pure Land teaching, Shinran began with
declaring that the “Larger Pure Land Sūtra” was the supreme authority and
teaching for Buddhism, in contrast to the Tendai view of the supremacy of
the “Lotus Sūtra.” He also asserted that it was superior to the “Sūtra of
Contemplation,” which had deeply influenced Pure Land practices of
visualization and the development of the nembutsu as recitation of the name.
However, in the “Kyō gyō shin shō,” Shinran's reliance on the “Nirvāna Sūtra”
and the “Kegon Sūtra” is striking. The reason for this lies in Shinran's
effort to integrate the Mahayana teaching of Buddha‑nature and Bodhi‑mind
into Pure Land doctrine to secure its position within Mahayana tradition,
and provide it with a firm theoretical basis.
Nevertheless, to critics like Myoe Shinran's overall solution may have been
no more acceptable than Honen's. Yet, Shinran goes beyond Honen when he
declares that Pure Land teaching is not merely an upāya in Buddhism,
or one option among many. Rather, it is in actuality the ultimate or final
teaching of Mahayana Buddhism, an even more definitive position than that
asserted by Honen. In effect, he made Honen's view of nembutsu more absolute
by using the argument of the critic in support of his own defense of Honen's
single, selected practice as a legitimate Mahayana teaching.
In
this connection, I believe it is fair to say that Honen probably knew the
implications of his thought when he advised his readers to keep the
“Senchakushū” secret, not to leave it by a window, but bury it in the wall.
Perhaps a clue to Honen's attitude can be found in the eloquent passage in
the chapter on the Primal Vow in the “Senchakushū” where he rejects a wide
variety of Buddhist practices from that of building temples and erecting
images (practice performed by lay people seeking merit) to the rigorous
practice of precepts carried out by monks in the quest for enlightenment. He
clearly indicates that Amida's Vow does not require building temples,
erecting images, cultivating intellectual attainments or moral virtues.
Honen's attitude to the Buddhism of his time may also be seen in his
“Muryōjukyōshaku” (“Comments on the Larger Pure Land Sūtra”). In this text
he discusses the five obstacles which place women in an inferior position in
Buddhism, excluding them from the various major sacred precincts in Japan.
He laments how sad it is that even though women have two feet and two eyes,
they cannot worship in such sacred places as Mount Hiei, Mount Koya, Mount
Kimpu or Todaiji. In the famous Ichimai kishōmon, Honen's testimony
on one sheet of paper, written shortly before his death, he proclaims the
deliverance of men and women equally through the recitation of the nembutsu.
This testimony is a short, concise summary of his essential teaching. In it
Honen praises the simple faith of nuns and monks who recite the nembutsu
without getting tangled in scholastic details and speculations.
The
basis for Myoe's criticism of Honen appears in several chapters of the
“Senchakushū” but focally in chapter 3 on the Primal Vow. Honen
characterizes Bodhi‑mind as a type of practice not required by the Primal
Vow. With respect to traditional Buddhist teaching, Myoe may have been
correct in his criticism. However, the type of Buddhism which Myoe
represented was elitist in the eyes of Honen and his followers. While Myoe
was highly regarded as a virtuous monk, if he was to be seen as the
exemplary model of the Bodhi‑mind ideal, most ordinary people would be
without hope. According to Honen, the ideal represented by Myoe and the
monastic institutions of the time is not required by Amida's Vow. Rather,
the simple recitation of the name accords with His Vow and is therefore open
to all. Shinran followed up the spirit of Honen's critique with his own
delineation of the nature of faith which lies beyond all such human
distinctions in the passage on the “Great Sea of Faith” in the “Kyō gyō shin
shō.” [4]
Though it is clear, as Myoe indicates, that this rejection goes against
centuries of Pure Land teaching itself, it is important to keep in mind that
Honen focused his attention on the people and not merely on the niceties of
scholarly, or buddhalogical discussion. Shinran, however, in order to
resolve the problem occasioned by Honen's rejection of the practice of Bodhi‑mind
for Pure Land teaching, shifted the attention away from practices and their
elitist implications to the issue of the mind or motivation of practice
within the Pure Land teaching. Bodhi‑mind no longer symbolized for Shinran
the rigorous disciplines in the attainment of Buddhahood, but the active
working of Buddha's compassion and wisdom within the faithful providing the
inner motivation and conviction that grounds religious life. It was the true
mind of Amida (shinshin, makoto no kokoro), conferred in
shinjin (true entrusting). This understanding is the basis for the
differences we can observe between Honen's thought and Shinran's.
Differences between Honen and Shinran's Thought
Shinran clearly and sincerely saw himself as a true exponent of Honen's
teaching of Nembutsu and Pure Land teaching. Nevertheless, as I have
indicated, there are aspects of Shinran's interpretations that do not appear
in Honen's writings. Earlier I mentioned the distinction of tradition (dentō)
and personal insight (koshō). This differentiation suggests that
Shinran grounds himself in tradition, but through his religious experience,
he sees more deeply into the tradition. As a consequence, he fulfills the
intention of the tradition, while offering new insights in an effort to
clarify its meaning. [5]
The
issue of Bodhi‑mind looms large in this discussion, because it appears that
Shinran was correcting his mentor. Without arguing this point, I would
suggest that it is clear that Shinran maintained Honen's emphasis on the
singularity and sufficiency of the nembutsu rooted in shinjin alone
to bring ultimate enlightenment, while using the argument of the opponent,
Myoe, in the service of this principle.
In
order to support his view, Shinran had to elevate the meaning of Amida from
simply a Buddha who had attained his enlightenment through practices to
Amida as the eternal Buddha (kuonjitsujō), without beginning or end,
the Buddha who is the direct representation of the Dharmakāya or
Buddha nature in all things. Shinran quotes the “Nirvāna Sūtra” in the
context of his interpretation of the mind of entrusting: "Great shinjin is
none other than Buddha‑nature. Buddha‑nature is Tathagata." [6] This
understanding provides the foundation for other aspects of Shinran's
thought.
In my
view, while the restoration of the principle of Bodhi‑mind to the
discussion of Pure Land faith by Shinran seemingly acknowledges Myoe's
criticism, for Shinran, it was perhaps more an effort to root Pure Land
teaching in Mahayana thought. At the same time, he maintained Honen's
struggle to assure the ordinary people of his day that they also could
attain enlightenment through trust in the Primal Vow. This Shinran asserts,
as had Honen, could be done in the form of the nembutsu within the context
of their ordinary lives, as effectively as the traditional forms of practice
done by great monks such as Myoe himself and others who practiced in the
renowned monastic centers.
The
most significant of these reinterpretations of the tradition is found in the
fulfillment passage of the 18th Vow in the “Larger Pure Land Sūtra.” Here
Shinran reinterprets the term ekō, which has generally signified
transfer of merit on the part of the practicer. The alteration he makes in
the natural reading of the passage transforms its meaning to show that true
entrusting/faith is conferred by Amida Buddha through the working of his
Primal Vow and does not root in any striving of the practicer. This
interpretation rests on Shinran's recognition that his deliverance and the
faith underlying it were the result of Amida's effort on behalf of sentient
beings and not the product of his own resolve or effort.
Honen's suggestion that the practice of nembutsu naturally yields the three
minds (shijōshin, sincerity, jinshin, deep mind or faith, and
ekōhotsuganshin, the mind to transfer merit toward [birth in the Pure
Land]) may have given Shinran a clue to understanding the relationship of
trust/faith and nembutsu. Shinran maintained that we are grasped by trust in
the Vow, which inspires the recitation of the nembutsu as an expression of
gratitude. According to him the recitation of the name itself does not give
rise to trust.
With
the assurance of trust received in this life, Shinran stressed that the
status of the Company of the Truly Assured (shōjōju) or
non‑retrogression is attained in the instant of trust, rather than after
birth in the Pure Land as in traditional Pure Land thought. Consequently, he
rejected the traditional understanding of raigō (the meeting with the
Buddha) or rinjū shōnen (the right thought at the moment of death)
which has been a major concern throughout Buddhism and maintained by Honen
and his disciples. This is the promise that the Buddha will meet the
followers of nembutsu and accompany them to the Pure Land. For Shinran,
raigō is not a matter of the moment of death, but the moment when
shinjin arises and one is embraced by the Buddha never to be abandoned.
From
Shinran's point of view, shinjin or trust in the Vow is the true mind
of the Buddha whose essence is the Bodhi‑mind. This Bodhi‑mind is
characterized by wisdom and compassion and the desire to bring all beings to
enlightenment. This mind is at work in the world guiding people to trust in
the Vow. It is also, the realization of the Buddha‑nature, manifested in
trust and conviction concerning the Vow or, negatively put, in the absence
of any doubt in the truth of the Vow, as well as a deep sense of our
passion-ridden condition. In this way, Shinran showed that faith is Bodhi‑mind
and the reality of Buddha‑nature, not as a resolve to achieve enlightenment
engendered by the practicers themselves or as a goal of realization through
religious discipline, but as the ground or basis for the arising of trust
within the devotee. So, trust has as its essence the wisdom and compassion
of Amida Buddha, which becomes expressed in personal religious experience as
the two types of deep faith (nishujinshin). In the practicer's
religious consciousness there is the dialectical awareness of one's
inveterate and inescapable passion‑ridden egoistic nature illuminated by
Amida's wisdom and at the same time the awareness of, and confidence in,
Amida's compassionate embrace, which never abandons.
With
respect to the recitation of the nembutsu itself, Shinran held to neither
single- recitation‑thought or many-recitation‑thought. He advocated that
shinjin and the assurance of enlightenment is established in this life
in an instant of thought or with a single recitation inspired by shinjin.
Nevertheless, he advocated the continuing recitation of the name out of
gratitude for the deliverance experienced. He also maintained that the
nembutsu was neither a practice nor a good deed, and rejected the assisting
or subsidiary practices advocated by some disciples of Honen.
Conclusion
I
have briefly tried to survey Shinran's unity and devotion with Honen, and
take a look at some differences in thought and interpretation that can be
observed in Shinran's writings. It is my view that the issues in the
conflict between Myoe and Honen and Shinran's contribution to the problem
should be put in their social context.
The
nascent Pure Land movement, while teaching what Pure Land teachers had
taught for centuries, namely that the recitation of nembutsu was a means for
birth and enlightenment, posed a great menace in this case, because it
involved an attack on the institutions of Buddhism which, as owners of great
manors, taxed the people under threat of divine retribution, if they did not
pay.
Honen's radicalism went beyond simply rejecting the concept of Bodhi‑mind
ideal and maintaining secrecy. There have been suggestions that Honen had a
private and public persona. We cannot judge his motivations at this point.
Obviously, he shared his thoughts with his disciples, and Kujo Kanezane, for
whom he wrote the “Senchakushū,” apparently either sympathized with him or
never caught its implications. However, they were not lost on Shinran who
spent a good part of his career among the peasants and townspeople in
eastern Japan. Shinran shows a sensitivity to the social and religious
position of his followers.
These
developments in Pure Land teaching illustrate that the potentiality of a
movement cannot be judged totally by the rightness or wrongness of a
teaching measured against tradition. Whatever the problems in Honen's and
Shinran's interpretation of Buddhist and Pure Land tradition, the nature of
the teaching ignited a flame that eventually gave rise to a variety of
groups, appealing to the masses, while promoting the teaching and
acknowledging Honen as their founder. Shin Buddhism, as a major outgrowth of
Honen's influence, became a conspicuous example of Buddhist populism under
Rennyo, the eighth abbot in Shin Buddhist lineage (1415‑1499). Shin
Buddhism, following Shinran, has always held Honen in high reverence as the
fountainhead of the teaching of trust in Amida's universal Vow and the
spiritual equality of all people.
References
1.
Shin Buddhism Translation Series, “The True Teaching, Practice and
Realization of the Pure Land Way,” (Kyoto: Hongwanji)
2. “Tannisho,” Shinshu Shogyo Zensho, pp. 774-775.
3. “Tannisho,” epilogue, Shin Buddhism Translation Series, pp. 48-49. “Kudensho,”
Shinshu Shogyo Zensho, (Kyoto: Kokyoin Shoin, 1941, rep. 1953), III,
pp. 22-23.
4. “The True Teaching, Practice and Realization of the Pure Land Way,” II,
pp. 249-250.
5. Ohara Shojitsu, “Shinshu no Kyogaku no Dento to Kosho,” (Kyoto: Nagata
Bunshodo, 1965), pp. 1-5.
6. Ibid., p. 236.
7. Ibid., p. 249.
