Pure Land Buddhism: Difference between revisions
Javierfv1212 (talk | contribs) updating china section with more sources/info |
Javierfv1212 (talk | contribs) adding sections on japan and himalayan buddhism |
||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
Another important late Pure Land author was the [[Yuan dynasty]] monk Tianru Weize (天如惟則, c. 1286?–1354), who wrote the ''Questions about Pure Land'' (''Jìngtǔ huòwèn'' 淨土或問, T.1972) as a dialogue between a skeptical Chan monk who poses questions about Pure Land practice, claiming it is dualistic.<ref>Jones (2019) p. 29.</ref> Tianru defends the idea that an evil person can attain the Pure Land at death by arguing that at death, a person's power of concentration becomes very strong and that during this special time, they may repent of their past deeds with complete sincerity.<ref>Jones (2019) pp. 29-30.</ref> |
Another important late Pure Land author was the [[Yuan dynasty]] monk Tianru Weize (天如惟則, c. 1286?–1354), who wrote the ''Questions about Pure Land'' (''Jìngtǔ huòwèn'' 淨土或問, T.1972) as a dialogue between a skeptical Chan monk who poses questions about Pure Land practice, claiming it is dualistic.<ref>Jones (2019) p. 29.</ref> Tianru defends the idea that an evil person can attain the Pure Land at death by arguing that at death, a person's power of concentration becomes very strong and that during this special time, they may repent of their past deeds with complete sincerity.<ref>Jones (2019) pp. 29-30.</ref> |
||
== Japanese Pure Land == |
|||
{{JapaneseBuddhism}} |
|||
[[File:Genshin-gazo.jpg|right|thumb|A hanging painting of Genshin holding a [[Japamala|mala]] used in nembutsu recitation (Shōjūraigōji Temple).]] |
|||
From China, the Chinese Pure Land teachings spread to [[Korea]], [[Japan]] and [[Vietnam]] where they developed in their own unique ways. Pure Land practice was present in Japan since the 7th century. During the [[Nara period]] (710–794), several monks taught nianfo (Japanese: nenbutsu) and wrote on Pure Land practice. These included Chikō (709–770 or 781) of the [[East Asian Mādhyamaka|Sanron]] (Middle Way) school and Zenju (723–797) of the [[East Asian Yogācāra|Hossō]] (Yogacara) school. Chikō's writings teach oral and visualized nenbutsu, with the main goal of attaining [[samadhi]], but also rebirth in the Pure Land.<ref name=":45">Jones, Charles B. (2021). ''Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice'', pp. 107-118. Shambhala Publications, {{ISBN|978-1611808902}}.</ref> |
|||
The most important schools of Japanese Buddhism developed between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. They were mostly influenced by the eclectic teachings of the [[Tendai]] school as their founding monks were all trained originally in the school.<ref>Woodhead, Linda. Religions in the Modern World, 3rd Edition. Routledge, 2016. [Chegg].</ref> This school was founded by [[Saichō]] (767–822), who studied the Chinese [[Tiantai|Tiantai school]] in China, including the nianfo methods taught by [[Zhiyi]].<ref name=":45" /> |
|||
During the [[Heian period]], Japanese Pure Land continued to develop in Tendai monasteries, such as the [[Mount Hiei|Mt. Hiei]] complex. One early Tendai figure, [[Ennin]], is known for having brought back the practice of nembutsu from China, and this became the foundation for later Pure Land movements in Japan.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Buswell |first=Robert E. |title=Encyclopedia of Buddhism |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |year=2004 |isbn=978-0028657189 |location=New York |pages=249–250}}</ref> It was Tendai monks like Zenyu (913-990) and Senkan (918–983) who first developed a distinctively Japanese Pure Land Buddhist discourse and who authored the ''Amida shinjūgi'' and ''Jūgan hosshinki'', respectively.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rhodes |first1=Robert F. |title=Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū and the Construction of Pure Land Discourse in Heian Japan (Pure Land Buddhist Studies) |last2=Payne |first2=Richard K. |publisher=University of Hawaii Press |year=2017 |isbn=0824872487 |pages=76-104}}</ref> Another important early figure of Japanese Pure Land was [[Genshin]] (942–1017), a [[Tendai]] monk known for his promotion of Pure Land practice and his writing of the ''[[Ōjōyōshū]]'' (''Essentials of Birth in the Pure Land'') which teaches Amitabha visualization and nembutsu and which was a very influential for later Japanese Pure Land authors. Genshin held that since we had entered the era of Dharma decline (''[[Three Ages of Buddhism|mappo]]''), the easy practice of nenbutsu was most effective now. However, he did not argue, like later Japanese Pure Land Buddhists, that one should only practice nenbutsu exclusively and instead believed that the nenbutsu practice was to be supplemented by other practices.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kopf |first=Gereon |title=Dao Companion to Japanese Buddhist Philosophy |date=2018 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9789048129232 |location=Berlin |pages=373}}</ref> |
|||
Pure Land practice also continued to develop in other Japanese schools of Buddhism. Figures such as Eikan (1033–1111) and Chinkai (c. 1091–1152) of the [[East Asian Mādhyamaka|Sanron]] school and [[Kakuban]] (1095–1143) of the [[Shingon Buddhism|Shingon]] school all promoted their own form of Pure Land nembutsu based practice.<ref>Stone, Jacqueline I. ''By the Power of One’s Last Nenbutsu: Deathbed Practices in Early Medieval Japan'' in Richard K. Payne & Kenneth K. Tanaka (2004) "Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha" (pp. 77-119).</ref> |
|||
Apart from these official monastic figures, there also existed itinerant holy men who traveled the countryside preaching about Pure Land practice. These preachers who practiced outside the authority of official temples, were called ''hijiri''. Some were properly ordained, but others were self-ordained or not ordained at all.<ref name=":45" /> Perhaps the most well known of these was [[Kūya]] (903–972), who was known for taking images of Amitabha with him and for his musical chanting of the nembutsu. He mainly wandered the country ministering to commoners and teaching them to chant the nenbutsu as well as providing other services like burying the dead, making wells and bridges and helping the needy. He was also devoted to [[Guanyin|Kannon]].<ref name="rhodes">{{cite book |last1=Rhodes |first1=Robert F. |title=Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū and the Construction of Pure Land Discourse in Heian Japan (Pure Land Buddhist Studies) |last2=Payne |first2=Richard K. |publisher=University of Hawaii Press |year=2017 |isbn=0824872487 |pages=64–72}}</ref><ref name=":45" /> |
|||
Pure Land practice also spread among commoners and laypersons, especially due to the rise in popularity of deathbed rituals and popular collections of stories of people who had achieved rebirth in the Pure Land, such as the ''Nihon Ōjō Gokuraku-ki'' (''Records of Rebirth in Utmost Bliss in Japan'') by Jakushin (c. 985).<ref name=":45" /> |
|||
=== The independent Pure Land sects === |
|||
Japanese Pure Land teachings eventually led to the formation of independent Pure Land institutions, as can be seen in the [[Jōdo-shū]], [[Jōdo Shinshū]], [[Yuzu Nembutsu|Yūzū-nembutsu-shū]], and [[Buddhism in Japan#Ji-shū|Ji-shū]].<ref>[http://www.buddhistteaching.org/guide-on-buddhism/%20Guide%20on%20Buddhism Guide on Buddhism for America]{{Dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref> These new Pure Land schools were part of a new wave of Buddhist schools founded in the [[Kamakura period]] (1185–1333), each which tended to narrow its focus around a single simple practice which was promoted exclusively above all others, especially the complex rituals and practices of Tendai Buddhism.<ref name=":45" /> This new focus allowed these schools to appeal to a wider base of support among the commoners.<ref name=":46">Jones, Charles B. (2021). ''Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice'', pp. 123-135. Shambhala Publications, {{ISBN|978-1611808902}}.</ref> |
|||
The first of these, the small [[Yuzu Nembutsu|Yūzū-nembutsu]] sect, was founded by the Tendai monk Ryōnin (1072–1132), who taught that just chanting nenbutsu as one's main practice was all that one needed to do to complete all virtues. He was influenced by the [[Huayan]] idea of interpenetration and held that chanting the nenbutsu not affected oneself, but also affected everyone around us. In his community, practicioners would sign a register and pledge to recite a certain number of nenbutsus per day. They would also hold joint recitation sessions and believed that all members received the collective benefit of their recitations.<ref>Jones, Charles B. (2021). ''Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice'', pp. 119-122. Shambhala Publications, [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-1611808902|978-1611808902]].</ref> |
|||
==== Hōnen's Jōdo-shū ==== |
|||
[[file:Statue of Honen in Bukkyo University 2017 b.jpg|thumb|Statue of Hōnen in [[Bukkyo University]]]] |
|||
[[file:JP-kamakura-daibutsu-2.jpg|thumb|The famous [[Kōtoku-in|Great Buddha of Kamakura]] (which depicts Amitabha), at Kōtoku-in, a Buddhist temple of the Jōdo-shū sect.]] |
|||
[[Hōnen]] (1133–1212) was a Tendai monk influenced by Genshin who initially practiced under a successor of Ryōnin at [[Mount Hiei]]. Through his efforts, a new independent Buddhist school was established ([[Jōdo-shū]]) which focused exclusively on Pure Land practice of the nenbutsu (nianfo).<ref>Williams, Paul (2008). ''Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition,'' pp. 254-255. Routledge.</ref><ref name=":46" /> Influenced by the work [[Shandao]], Hōnen held that to reach the Pure Land it was only necessary to orally recite the name of Amitabha.<ref name=":46" /> One did not need to meditate, perform any rituals, visualize any Buddha, study sutras or do any other practice (as was common in Tendai and Chinese Pure Land). One just had to recite the name with faith and joy. Thus, Hōnen's doctrine favored simple nenbutsu recitation above all other practices. Indeed, he argued that all other practices were inferior to nenbutsu in this degenerate age.<ref name=":46" /> |
|||
However, Hōnen is known to have scrupulously kept the Tendai precepts, and to have continued to perform rituals and study texts. Thus, he did not teach that one should completely discard all other practices, only that the nenbutsu was supreme and that only nenbutsu could lead to Buddhahood. And yet, he held that other practices (those which Shandao taught as auxiliary to nenbutsu) could enrich one's nenbutsu practice.<ref name=":46" /> |
|||
According to Hōnen, even the most unethical or lowly people (like fishermen, prostitutes, etc) would be saved, as they were, by simply reciting ''[[Nianfo|namo amida butsu]]''. Likewise, one did not have to worry about paying for deathbed rituals or organizing one's last days in any specific way. Simply by reciting nenbutsu now one would be saved whenever death came.<ref name=":46" /> This simple teaching became very popular in Japan, especially among ordinary people.<ref>Williams, Paul (2008). ''Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition,'' pp. 255-256. Routledge.</ref> Because of his reliance on a single simple practice, Hōnen's teaching was widely criticized as neglecting basic Buddhist ethics and bodhicitta. A notable critique was penned by the Kegon author [[Myōe]].<ref name=":20">Williams, Paul (2008). ''Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition,'' pp. 257-258. Routledge.</ref> While Hōnen was discrite in his critiques of other forms of Buddhism, some of his disciples were not. A scandal involving rumors of some of Hōnen's disciples and an imperial concubine led to Hōnen's exile and the persecution of some of his disciples.<ref name=":20" /><ref name=":46" /> |
|||
After Hōnen's death, many of his writings were destroyed by the Tendai school [[Sōhei|warrior monks]] who also destroyed his tomb. The state also attempted to suppress his teachings, sending many of his disciples far away from the capital and this may have contribued to spread of the tradition all over Japan.<ref name=":46" /> There was also a dispute among his followers over the issue of two different doctrinal stances: once-calling (Jp: ''ichinengi'') and many-calling (''tanengi''). Once-calling held that you only needed to recite nenbutsu once and you would be saved, the many-calling view held that you needed to recite nenbutsu as much as possible. According to Jones, Hōnen had generally held that many-calling view, arguing for sustained practice, but the once-calling view also had some scriptural support. Thus, the debate continued long after his death.<ref name=":46" /> |
|||
Initially, the Jōdo-shū were a faction (''ha'') or sub-sect of the Tendai school, but after the 14th century, it developed into an independent tradition, which was more like a loose family of lineages.<ref name=":46" /> A particularly influential event was the founding of the Chinzei branch by [[Benchō]] (1162–1238) and the subsequent work of Shōgei (1341–1420) to set up a formal training program for Jōdo Shū priests. This meant they no longer needed to study the monasteries of other traditions. The other main lineage of Jōdo-shū is the [[Seizan]] (West Mountain) branch founded by [[Shōkū]] (1177–1247).<ref name=":46" /> |
|||
==== Shinran's Jōdo Shinshū ==== |
|||
[[file:威徳寺本堂.JPG|thumb|The main hall of Weitokuji Temple, Japan]] |
|||
After Hōnen's death, one of his disciples, [[Shinran|Shinran Shōnin]] (1173–1262) created another new Pure Land school, the [[Jōdo Shinshū]] (True Pure Land, also known as Shin Buddhism) which would eventually grow to become one of the largest Buddhist schools in Japan.<ref name=":47">Jones, Charles B. (2021). ''Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice'', pp. 136-150. Shambhala Publications, {{ISBN|978-1611808902}}.</ref> Shinran had been a Tendai monk who saw himself as unsuited to the rigorous practices of the Tendai sect and became a follower of Hōnen.<ref name=":47" /> |
|||
After he was exiled and defrocked with his master, Shinran married and remained a layman even after he was pardoned by the state in 1211. He then moved to the Kantō region with his family. It was at this time that he realized his practice of all other Buddhist methods other than the nenbutsu were futile and he entrusted himself completely to the power of Amitabha.<ref name=":47" /> Shinran would go on to write some important works on Pure Land thought and practice, mainly the ''Kyōgyōshinshō'' and the ''Tannishō,'' which discuss the important of total self-abandonment or entrusting (Jp. [[Shinjin|''shinjin'']]) of ourselves to the Buddha Amitabha.<ref name=":48">Williams, Paul (2008). ''Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition,'' pp. 261-263. Routledge.</ref> |
|||
For Shinran, this shinjin - faith or entrusting - became the center of his teaching, which according to Jones, was "a deep conversion experience and the very means by which rebirth became assured."<ref name=":47" /> For Shinran, any religious effort arose from a lack of trust in Amitabha's power and vows, which was the only thing that actually led to Buddhahood. Thus, one had to realize that one's own efforts were futile and completely entrust oneself to Amitabha. This total faith expresses itself as the nenbutsu. If someone has not developed shinjin, nenbutsu at least acts as a reminder that one requires salvation from Amitabha, and if one has developed shinjin, it is an expression of gratitude.<ref name=":47" /> This entrusting is a total letting go which comes from Amitabha's grace, our own true nature, the [[Buddha-nature]]. This is the real "other power" (Jp. [[Tariki (Buddhism)|tariki]]) of Amitabha that is beyond the egoistic "self-power" (jiriki) and all notions of self and effort. Thus, other power is not something outside of us according to Shinran, but is immanent as our Buddha-nature.<ref name=":47" /> |
|||
The fact that Shinran was not a monk meant that he and his followers often did not meet in temples, but in various other places, including private homes, which they might designate as [[Dojo|dōjōs]]. These lay groups or congregations (monto) would also choose their own leaders and meet to practice nenbutsu together. According to Jones, "The development of independent congregations of laypeople managing their own practice and organizations loosened the control that religious orders and the aristocracy traditionally exercised, and it represented a new, more democratic structure for Japanese Buddhism as a whole."<ref name=":47" /> |
|||
After his death, Shinran's communities remained as independent congregations, and the tradition now known as "Jōdo Shinshū" slowly developed over time. Shinra's sons and family, especially his grandson [[Kakunyo]] (1270–1351) and great-grandson Zonkaku (1290–1373) became influential caretakers of the tradition centered on [[Hongan-ji|Honganji]] temple which was built on the site of Shinran's grave.<ref name=":47" /> Preaching and proselytizing was an important part of the tradition and there was a kind of equality between men and women (who were also given leadership roles). [[Rennyo]] (1415–1499) was one of the most influential figures in Shin Buddhist history. He was the eighth head of Honganji and led an expansion in membership and unification of Shin Buddhism. He also wrote new texts which clarified the doctrine of the tradition.<ref name=":47" /> |
|||
==== Ippen ==== |
|||
Another, smaller Pure Land sect known as Jishū (時 宗) was founded by [[Ippen]] (1239–1289). Ippen was influenced by [[Hōnen]], as well as Zen and Shingon Buddhism.<ref name="Dobbins1988">{{cite journal |last1=Dobbins |first1=James C. |date=1988 |title=Review: No Abode: The Record of Ippen. by Dennis Hirota |journal=Monumenta Nipponica |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=253 |doi=10.2307/2384755 |jstor=2384755}}</ref><ref name=":49">Jones, Charles B. (2021). ''Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice'', pp. 151-160. Shambhala Publications, [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-1611808902|978-1611808902]].</ref> He wandered throughout Japan teaching nenbutsu with a band of followers. Ippen taught that not even faith was necessary for salvation, only the actual chanting the nenbutsu alone was needed. This is because he held, like Tanluan, that the mere name of Amitabha contained his entire reality. Amitabha was fully present in the name, since his existence, his [[Dharmakāya|Dharmakaya]], was all pervasive. Thus, the recitation of the nenbutsu made one's mind non-dual with Amitabha.<ref name=":49" /> Because of this, one did not need to generate faith. Faith was a gift from the Buddha, but not something we could give rise to by ourselves (since this was a kind of self-power) and so we should not be concerned with it.<ref name=":49" /> Ippen's teaching was very popular and his sect was dominant Pure Land sect for the two centuries following his death, but then it went into decline.<ref name=":49" /> |
|||
=== Later developments === |
|||
Today in Japan, Pure Land schools make up almost 40 percent of Buddhist practitioners and has the most temples, second only to Zen schools.<ref>Woodhead, Linda. ''Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations.'' New York: Routledge Publishing, 2016, {{ISBN|9780415858816}} p. 83</ref> In Japan, strong institutional boundaries exist between sects which serve to clearly separate the Japanese Pure Land schools from the Japanese Zen schools.<ref name="faces">Prebish, Charles. Tanaka, Kenneth. ''The Faces of Buddhism in America.'' 1998. p. 20</ref> One notable exception to this is found in the [[Ōbaku]] Zen school, which was founded in Japan during the 17th century by the Chinese Buddhist monk [[Ingen]] (Chinese ''Yinyuan Longqi''). The [[Ōbaku]] school of Zen retains many Chinese features such as mindfulness of Amitābha through recitation and recitation of the Pure Land sūtras.<ref>Baroni, Helen Josephine. ''Iron Eyes: The Life and Teachings of the Ōbaku Zen master Tetsugen Dōko.'' 2006. pp. 5–6</ref> |
|||
Upon encountering Japanese Pure Land traditions which emphasize [[faith in Buddhism|faith]], many westerners saw outward parallels between these traditions and [[Protestantism|Protestant Christianity]]. This has led many western authors to speculate about possible connections between these traditions.<ref name="Bloom, Alfred 2013">Bloom, Alfred. ''The Shin Buddhist Classical Tradition.'' 2013. p. xii</ref> However, the [[cosmology]], internal assumptions, and underlying doctrines and practices are now known to have many differences.<ref name="Bloom, Alfred 2013" /> |
|||
== The Pure Land == |
== The Pure Land == |
||
| Line 166: | Line 220: | ||
Sutras of Pure Land Buddhism preach that Dharma brings effects equally without distinction of saints or the imperial family. This is one of the reasons that became most popular among the populace. In addition, it references that benevolences expecting the reward do not have good deeds, and suggests that good and evil may be interchanged in the difference of one's situation. Hence, it was thought that menial persons could be released from the underworld like [[Hell]] and arrive at Pure Land easily depending on their good deeds in one's lifetime. However, because this teaching includes extremely difficult subject matter, various denominations or sects appeared over the interpretation.{{citation needed|reason=whole paragraph|date=February 2016}} |
Sutras of Pure Land Buddhism preach that Dharma brings effects equally without distinction of saints or the imperial family. This is one of the reasons that became most popular among the populace. In addition, it references that benevolences expecting the reward do not have good deeds, and suggests that good and evil may be interchanged in the difference of one's situation. Hence, it was thought that menial persons could be released from the underworld like [[Hell]] and arrive at Pure Land easily depending on their good deeds in one's lifetime. However, because this teaching includes extremely difficult subject matter, various denominations or sects appeared over the interpretation.{{citation needed|reason=whole paragraph|date=February 2016}} |
||
== Pure Land in Himalayan Buddhism == |
|||
[[File:Anonymous - Painted Banner (Thangka) of Amitayus Buddha Surrounded by One Hundred Buddhas - 1975.536 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg|thumb|Tibetan [[thangka]] of Amitabha]] |
|||
[[file:Buddha Amitayus in His Pure Land - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|Amitayus in Sukhavati, 18th century.]] |
|||
In [[Tibetan Buddhism]], which is a [[Vajrayana]] tradition, various practices and ideas which are focused on rebirth in the Buddhafield of Amitabha (as well as other Buddhas) exist as part of the vast repertoire of Buddhist practices found in this tradition.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chen |first=Shu-Chen |last2=Groner |first2=Paul |date=2007 |title=Cultural Change of Indian Pure Land Buddhist Teaching in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism |url=http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:4284 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025225210/https://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:4284 |archive-date=October 25, 2020 |access-date=2017-08-06 |website=UVA Library {{!}} Virgo |language=en}} An extensive comparison of Pure Land Buddhism in India, China, and Tibet.</ref><ref name=":35">Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', pp. xxv-xxvii University of Hawaii Press.</ref> These include exoteric (or sutra) and esoteric (of tantric) forms of Buddhist practice focused on the Buddha Amitabha and his buddhafield of Sukhavati''.<ref name=":35" />'' Matthew Kapstein writes that "Sukhavati has long been an important focal point for much of Tibetan devotion," especially among lay devotees who commonly revere Amitabha, [[Avalokiteśvara|Avalokiteshvara]] and [[Padmasambhava]] as [[Trikaya|three bodies]] of a single Buddha.<ref name=":39">Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 17. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> He also notes that such an orientation also exists in [[Buddhism in Nepal|Nepalese Buddhism]].<ref name=":39" /> |
|||
Georgios T. Halkias notes that the term "Pure Land" can be used in reference to these Tibetan practices and scriptures which are analogous to East Asian Pure Land Buddhist practices. However, he also notes that there has never been an "sectarian, self-conscious movement of Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet" which saw itself as independent of the larger doctrinal and practical worldview of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. As such, Pure Land practices in Tibetan Buddhism are considered one element or orientation within the broader Himalayan Buddhist tradition.<ref>Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. xxviii University of Hawaii Press.</ref><ref name=":39" /> |
|||
Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet has a long and innovative history dating from the era of the [[Tibetan Empire]] (8th-9th centuries), with the translation of the ''Sukhāvatīvyūha'' sūtras into Tibetan. Tibetan documents from [[Dunhuang]] also prove that by the 8th and 9th centuries, Sukhavati and Amitabha were important to Tibetan Buddhists.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 20. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> The Tibetan Canon also includes numerous other Sukhavati-Amitabha oriented texts, including various [[Dharani|dharanis]] (incantations/spells) which claim to lead one to Sukhavati. These include the ''Cloud of Offerings Dharani'', ''Dharani-Mantra of Amitabha'', ''Recollection of Amitabha'', ''Dharani of the Essence of Aparimitayus'', ''Dharani in Praise of Immeasurable Qualities.''<ref>Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. 140. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> However, there are also many other sources which mention other Pure Lands aside from Sukhavati, which shows that this was not the only Pure Land sought after by Tibetan Buddhists during the first and second disseminations of Buddhism.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 21. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
=== Tibetan Pure Land works === |
|||
Tibetan compositions of pure-land prayers and artistic renditions of Sukhāvatī in Central Asia date to that time. Tibetan pure-land literature forms a distinct genre and encompasses a wide range of texts, including aspirational and devotional prayers for rebirth in Sukhavati (Tib. ''bde-smon''), commentaries (''’grel-ba'') by scholars which discuss Pure Land practice, and esoteric meditations and rituals belonging to the Vajrayāna tradition which focus on rebirth in the Pure land and on the deity Amitābha.<ref name=":36">Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. xxix University of Hawaii Press.</ref> The composition of Pure Land oriented literature was popular among major Tibetan Buddhist figures. For example, both [[Sakya Pandita]] (a key figure for the [[Sakya]] school) and [[Je Tsongkhapa|Tsongkhapa]] (the founder of the [[Gelug]] school), compossed Sukhavati oriented works.<ref name=":37">Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. 109. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
Tibetan commentaries focusing on Amitabha and Sukhavati, like [[Khedrup Gelek Pelzang, 1st Panchen Lama|The First Panchen Lama]]'s (1567-1662) ''Swift and Unobstructed Path to Sukhavati,'' teach methods to attain the Pure Land. In this text, the First Panchen Lama advises that one may use a [[thangka]] painting or a statue to help visualize Amitabha in his Pure Land while maintaining a mind oriented towards the good of all beings. The commentary also says that one should infuse all daily activities with this practice.<ref name=":37" /> |
|||
Another important commentary on Pure Land practice, ''Training for Sukhavati with Luminous Faith: Sun-like Instructions of a Sage'', was composed by the [[Nyingma]] scholar [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Ju Mipham]] (1846–1912).<ref>Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. 122. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> His work is a classic of the genre and draws on numerous other texts to explain how Pure Land practice works through a synthesis of the "ripening force of individual beings" (''sems-can rang-rang gi stobs smin-pa''), the "power of reality's potency" (''dngos-po'i nus-pa'') and the power of Amitābha's aspirations (''smon-lam'') and wisdom (''ye-shes'').<ref name=":38">Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. 123. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> According to Mipham, rebirth in Sukhavati is an excellent path to nirvana and is based on four causes: recollecting Buddha Amitabha, accumulating countless virtues, generating [[bodhicitta]], and dedicating one's virtues to rebirth in Sukhavati. Recollecting the Buddha with faith and a strong aspiration to be born in Sukhavati are the main causes, while the others are secondary.<ref name=":38" /> Mipham also discusses the three major hindrances to birth in Sukhavati: lack of understanding, wrong views and doubt. he also recommends reading, reciting, writing and meditating on the Sukhavati sutras.<ref>Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. 124. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
Amitabha is generally understood as a specific Buddha, one of the [[Five Tathāgatas|Five Tathagathas]], some of the most prominent Buddhas in the tradition. However, in some Tibetan Buddhist writings, Amitabha is equated with the [[Dharmakāya|Dharmakaya]] and with the [[Dzogchen]] concept of the [[Ground (Dzogchen)|basis]] or ground (gzhi). For example, the great 19th century Dzogchen master [[Dudjom Lingpa]] (''khrag 'thung bdud 'joms rdo rje''), writes: "Emaho, in the self-manifest, pure expanse that is the real [[Akaniṣṭha|Akanistha]], the magical field that is gnosis arrayed, is the Dharmakaya of the ground, the conqueror Amitabha."<ref name=":40">Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 40. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> Thus, Matthew Kapstein writes that in this Dzogchen understanding of Amitabha, Sukhavati is "no longer the name of a particular paradise, but rather a [[Metonymy|metonymic]] expression for the primordial ground in which the Buddha's gnosis is disclosed."<ref name=":40" /> |
|||
=== Pure Land practices === |
|||
It seems that from the 11th century onwards, Amitabha and Sukhavati became increasingly popular, and this pure land became the most widespread destination sought by Pure Land rituals and contemplations.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 27. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> Amitabha focused tantric practices seem to have become widespread at least partly due to the efforts of the Indian tantric scholar Jetari.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 27. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> One of these practices was popularized by the Sakya school and was a contemplation that one performed just before falling asleep, in which one visualized Sukhavati and the Buddha Amitabha. This "sleep-meditation" (nyal-bsgom) continues to be transmitted in the Sakya school until the present day.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', pp. 29-30. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
Pure Land works based on Amitabha are found in various other Tibetan textual collections, such as in the compositions of Tibetan masters like [[Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen]] (1292–1361), [[Namchö Mingyur Dorje]] (1645–1667) and [[Karma Chagme]] (1613–1678).<ref>Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. xxx University of Hawaii Press.</ref> Dolpopa is known to have written a commentary on the Larger ''Sukhāvatīvyuha sutra'' entitled ''The supreme means whereby self and others may be reborn in Sukhāvatī.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', pp. 29-30. University of Hawaii Press.</ref>'' According to Georgios T. Halkias, Mingyur Dorje's Namcho [[Terma (religion)|Terma]] Cycle "contains a unique assortment of ritual practices devoted exclusively to the realization of Sukhāvatī" called ''The Means of Attaining the Sukhāvatī Kṣetra,'' which "represents the most original and systematic anthology of Tibetan Pure Land rituals to date."<ref>Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). ''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', p. 170. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> This terma includes phowa practices and extensive visualization exercises where the main [[mandala]] is Sukhavati.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 32. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
The esoteric practice of [[phowa|''phowa'']] (mind transference, Sanskrit: ''*saṃkrānti'') is unique part of Tibetan Pure Land practice which is found in various terma (revealed treasure) works like ''The Standing Blade of Grass'' (Tib. ''{{'}}Pho-ba {{'}}Jag-tshug ma'') by the [[Nyingma]] master Nyida Sangye (14th century) and [[Namchö Mingyur Dorje]]'s Namcho Terma.<ref name=":36" /><ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 32. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> Phowa is an esoteric technique which ejects the [[Mind Stream|mind stream]] through the crown of the head directly to Sukhavati at the moment of death.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 26. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> This technique is found as one of the [[Six Dharmas of Naropa#Transference of consciousness|Six Dharmas of Naropa.]]<ref>Kragh, Ulrich Timme (2015) ''Tibetan Yoga and Mysticism A Textual Study of the Yogas of Naropa and Mahamudra Meditation in the Medieval Tradition of Dags po,'' p. 355. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies (Studia Philologica Buddhica). [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/4-90626-772-6|4-90626-772-6]]</ref> Since phowa specialists are said to be able to guide the minds of other people at death to Sukhavati, phowa also became a popular ritual that came to be performed for the dying by lamas.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', p. 26. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
Another important tradition in Tibetan Buddhism are tantric practices based around Amitayus (another name for Amitabha, meaning Infinite Life) which focuses on the longevity and life-giving powers of this Buddha.<ref>Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). ''Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha'', pp. 25. University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
There are many other treasure texts (termas) associated with Pure Land practice <ref>''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', 2013, by Georgios T. Halkias, University of Hawaii Press, chapter 5.</ref> and [[tertön]] [[Longsal Nyingpo]] (1625–1682/92 or 1685–1752) of [[Katok Monastery]] revealed a terma on the pure land.<ref>Khadro, Chagdud (1998, 2003). ''P'howa Commentary: Instructions for the Practice of Consciousness Transference as Revealed by Rigzin Longsal Nyingpo''. Junction City, CA: [[Pilgrims Publishing]]</ref> |
|||
== Practices == |
== Practices == |
||
| Line 207: | Line 290: | ||
When a person dies, at first "good luck at the underworld" is prayed for the dead person. The family remains in mourning for 49 days till the dead person's reincarnation (Pure Land sects may say "till achieving Pure Land"). It is thought that the great sinner transmigrates to a ''beast'' or a ''hungry ogre'' without being able to go to the Pure Land. |
When a person dies, at first "good luck at the underworld" is prayed for the dead person. The family remains in mourning for 49 days till the dead person's reincarnation (Pure Land sects may say "till achieving Pure Land"). It is thought that the great sinner transmigrates to a ''beast'' or a ''hungry ogre'' without being able to go to the Pure Land. |
||
== Variance between traditions == |
|||
{{Buddhism and China}}In Tibet, which has a Tantric culture, the original Indic general orientation of seeking rebirth in the Pure Land of any deity was retained. Tibetan practitioners may also visualize themselves as a Buddha. By contrast, the Chinese traditions are oriented towards seeking assistance from an "other-Amitabha Buddha" which is outside the self, and may consider the Western Pure Land to exist only in the mind.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:4284|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025225210/https://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:4284|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 25, 2020|title=Cultural Change of Indian Pure Land Buddhist Teaching in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism|last=Chen|first=Shu-Chen|last2=Groner|first2=Paul|date=2007|website=UVA Library {{!}} Virgo|language=en|access-date=2017-08-06}} An extensive comparison of Pure Land Buddhism in India, China, and Tibet.</ref>{{JapaneseBuddhism}} |
|||
=== Indian Buddhism === |
|||
Regarding Pure Land practice in Indian Buddhism, Hajime Nakamura writes that as described in the Pure Land sūtras from India, Mindfulness of the Buddha (Skt. ''buddhānusmṛti'') is the essential practice.<ref name=nakamura>Nakamura, Hajime. ''Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes.'' 1999. p. 205</ref> These forms of mindfulness are essentially methods of meditating upon Amitābha Buddha.<ref name=nakamura/> Andrew Skilton looks to an intermingling of Mahāyāna teachings with Buddhist meditation schools in Kashmir for the rise of Mahāyāna practices related to ''buddhānusmṛti'', mindfulness of the Buddha:<ref>Skilton, Andrew. ''A Concise History of Buddhism.'' 2004. p. 162</ref> |
|||
{{quote|Great innovations undoubtedly arose from the intermingling of early Buddhism and the Mahāyāna in Kashmir. Under the guidance of [[Sarvastivada|Sarvāstivādin]] teachers in the region, a number of influential meditation schools evolved which took as their inspiration the Bodhisattva [[Maitreya]]. [...] The Kashmiri meditation schools were undoubtably highly influential in the arising of the ''buddhānusmṛti'' practices, concerned with the 'recollection of the Buddha(s)', which were later to become characteristic of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the [[Vajrayana|Tantra]].}} |
|||
=== Chinese Buddhism === |
|||
Pure Land cosmology, soteriology, and ritual were always part-and-parcel of Chinese Buddhism in general and [[Chan Buddhism|Chan]] monasticism in particular. The modern conception of an independent and self-conscious Chinese Pure Land school in history with its own patriarchate and teachings, and the associated notion of Chan/Pure Land syncretism, are inordinately influence by the Japanization of [[Buddhist studies]] and the enduring legacy of Japanese sectarian disputes over [[Jodo Shinshu Patriarchs|Chinese Patriarchs]].<ref>Sharf, Robert (2002). [https://web.archive.org/web/20120426051610/http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf2003.%20TP%20Chan%20and%20Pure%20Land.pdf On Pure Land Buddhism and Pure Land/Chan Syncretism in Medieval China], T`oung Pao Vol. 88 (4-5), 283-285</ref> In reality, Pure Land and Chan/Zen practice were historically and still often seen as being mutually compatible, and no strong distinctions are made.<ref name=faces>Prebish, Charles. Tanaka, Kenneth. ''The Faces of Buddhism in America.'' 1998. p. 20</ref> Chinese Buddhists have traditionally viewed the practice of meditation and the practice of reciting Amitābha Buddha's name, as complementary and even analogous methods for achieving enlightenment.<ref name=faces/> This is because they view recitation as a meditation method used to concentrate the mind and purify thoughts.<ref name=faces/> Chinese Buddhists widely consider this form of recitation as a very effective form of meditation practice.<ref name=faces/> |
|||
Historically, Buddhist teachers in China have taken eclectic approaches in their practice by teaching various Buddhist schools of thought concurrently (including Pure Land and Chan), without emphasizing any strict sectarian delineation between them. For example, prominent monastics during such as [[Tan-luan|Tanluan]] were recorded as having written commentaries on non-Pure Land related scriptures, and there is little evidence of them having advocated for Pure Land as an independent "school" of Buddhism.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/881387072|title=The Wiley Blackwell companion to East and inner Asian Buddhism|date=2014|others=Mario Poceski|isbn=978-1-118-61035-0|location=Chichester, West Sussex, UK|oclc=881387072}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sharf|first=Robert H.|date=2002|title=On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch'an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4528903|journal=T'oung Pao|volume=88|issue=4/5|pages=282–331|issn=0082-5433}}</ref> Another example is [[Hanshan Deqing]] and many of his contemporaries who advocated the dual practice of the Chan and Pure Land methods, advocating mindfulness of Amitābha to purify the mind for the attainment of self-realization.<ref>Keown, Damien. ''A Dictionary of Buddhism.'' 2003. p. 104</ref> |
|||
=== Tibetan Buddhism === |
|||
Tibetan Pure Land Buddhism has a long and innovative history dating from the 8th-9th centuries, the era of the [[Tibetan Empire]], with the translation and canonization of the Sanskrit ''Sukhāvatīvyūha'' sūtras in Tibetan. Tibetan compositions of pure-land prayers and artistic renditions of Sukhāvatī in Central Asia date to that time. Tibetan pure-land literature forms a distinct genre and encompasses a wide range of scriptures, "aspiration prayers to be born in Sukhāvatī" (Tib. ''bde-smon''), commentaries on the prayers and the sūtras, and meditations and rituals belonging to the Vajrayāna tradition. The incorporation of [[phowa]] (mind transference techniques) in pure-land meditations is textually attested in the 14th century, in ''The Standing Blade of Grass'' (Tib. ''{{'}}Pho-ba {{'}}Jag-tshug ma''), a ''[[terma (religion)|terma]]'' text allegedly dating to the time of the Tibetan Empire. A good number of Buddhist treasure texts are dedicated to Amitābha and to rituals associated with his pure-land, while the wide acceptance of [[phowa]] in Tibetan death rituals may owe its popularity to Pure Land Buddhism promoted by all schools of [[Tibetan Buddhism]].<ref>''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', 2013, by Georgios T. Halkias, University of Hawaii Press.</ref> |
|||
There are many treasure texts associated with Tibetan Pure Land Buddhism <ref>''Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet'', 2013, by Georgios T. Halkias, University of Hawaii Press, chapter 5.</ref> and [[tertön]] [[Longsal Nyingpo]] (1625–1682/92 or 1685–1752) of [[Katok Monastery]] revealed a terma on the pure land.<ref>Khadro, Chagdud (1998, 2003). ''P'howa Commentary: Instructions for the Practice of Consciousness Transference as Revealed by Rigzin Longsal Nyingpo''. Junction City, CA: [[Pilgrims Publishing]]</ref> This terma entailed phowa during the [[bardo]] of dying, sending the [[Mind Stream]] to a pure land. |
|||
Gyatrul (b. 1924),<ref>Source: [http://www.tashicholing.org/Gyatrul.html biography] (accessed: August 26, 2013)</ref> in a purport to the work of [[Karma Chagme]] (Wylie: Karma Chags-med, fl. 17th century), rendered into English by [[B. Alan Wallace]] (Chagmé ''et al.'', 1998: p. 35), states: |
|||
{{quote|It is important to apply our knowledge internally. The Buddha attained enlightenment in this way. The pure lands are internal; the mental afflictions are internal. The crucial factor is to recognize the mental afflictions. Only by recognizing their nature can we attain Buddhahood.<ref>Chagmé, Karma (author, compiler); Gyatrul Rinpoche (commentary) & Wallace, B. Alan (translator) (1998). ''A Spacious Path to Freedom: Practical Instructions on the Union of Mahamudra and Atiyoga''. Ithaca, New York, USA: Snow Lion Publications. {{ISBN|978-1-55939-071-2}}; {{ISBN|1-55939-071-9}}, p.35</ref>}} |
|||
=== Japanese Buddhism === |
|||
In [[Japanese Buddhism]], Pure Land teachings developed into independent institutional sects, as can be seen in the [[Jōdo-shū]], [[Jōdo Shinshū]], [[Yuzu Nembutsu|Yūzū-nembutsu-shū]], and [[Buddhism in Japan#Ji-shū|Ji-shū]].<ref>[http://www.buddhistteaching.org/guide-on-buddhism/%20Guide%20on%20Buddhism Guide on Buddhism for America]{{Dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref> |
|||
The majority of the important schools of Japanese Buddhism developed in the Middle Ages, between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. However they were mostly influenced by the Tendai school (Chinese: Tientai in the sixth century) as their founding monks were all trained originally in the school. The Tendai school's teachings were based on the [[Lotus Sutra|Lotus Sūtra]] and [[Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra|Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa Sūtra]], encompassing a wide range of teachings and eclectic practices of austerities. |
|||
<ref>Woodhead, Linda. Religions in the Modern World, 3rd Edition. Routledge, 2016. [Chegg].</ref> |
|||
Strong institutional boundaries exist between sects which serve to clearly separate the Japanese Pure Land schools from the Japanese Zen schools.<ref name=faces/> One notable exception to this is found in the [[Ōbaku]] Zen school, which was founded in Japan during the 17th century by the Chinese Buddhist monk [[Ingen]] (Chinese ''Yinyuan Longqi''). The [[Ōbaku]] school of Zen retains many Chinese features such as mindfulness of Amitābha through recitation and recitation of the Pure Land sūtras.<ref>Baroni, Helen Josephine. ''Iron Eyes: The Life and Teachings of the Ōbaku Zen master Tetsugen Dōko.'' 2006. pp. 5–6</ref> |
|||
Upon encountering Japanese Pure Land traditions which emphasize [[faith in Buddhism|faith]], many westerners saw outward parallels between these traditions and [[Protestantism|Protestant Christianity]]. This has led many western authors to speculate about possible connections between these traditions.<ref name="Bloom, Alfred 2013">Bloom, Alfred. ''The Shin Buddhist Classical Tradition.'' 2013. p. xii</ref> However, the [[cosmology]], internal assumptions, and underlying doctrines and practices are now known to have many differences.<ref name="Bloom, Alfred 2013"/> |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
Revision as of 17:07, 2 June 2022
| Part of a series on |
| Mahāyāna Buddhism |
|---|
 |
Pure Land Buddhism (Chinese: 淨土宗; pinyin: Jìngtǔzōng; Japanese: 浄土仏教, romanized: Jōdo bukkyō; Korean: 정토종; RR: Jeongto-jong; Vietnamese: Tịnh Độ Tông), also referred to as Amidism in English,[1][2] is a broad branch of Mahayana Buddhism focused on achieving rebirth in a Buddha's Buddha-field or Pure Land. It is one of the most widely practiced traditions of Buddhism in East Asia. According to Charles B. Jones "Pure Land is the dominant form of Buddhism in China, Japan and Korea."[3] In Chinese Buddhism, the tradition is sometimes called a zōng (school) in an institutional sense, but historically it was most commonly described as a "dharma-gate" (fǎmén 法門), referring to a method of Buddhist practice. In Japanese Buddhism, the term more commonly refers to specific institutions.[4] In Tibetan Buddhism, prayers and practices which aim at rebirth in a Buddha-field are a popular religious orientation, especially among laypersons.[5]
Pure Land is a tradition which is primarily focused on achieving rebirth in a Buddha's "pure land" or buddha-field (Sanskrit: buddhakṣetra), which generally speaking is a Buddha's field of influence.[6] Some Buddha-fields are considered to be superior places to spiritually train for full Buddhahood, since a Buddha has compassionately "purified" it for this purpose and since in these realms, one can meet a Buddha face to face and study under them.[6] Since it is much easier to attain enlightenment in one of these buddha-fields (due to the corrupt nature of our age), many Mahayana Buddhists strive to be reborn in such a place.[7]
The most common pure land today is that of Amitābha, called Sukhavati, "Land of Bliss".[8] Mahayana Buddhists may also aspire to be reborn in other pure lands, such as the Buddhafields of Aksobhya and Medicine Guru (though this is rarer).[9] In Tibetan Buddhism, adherents may also aspire to other pure lands such as that of Padmasambhava. Although the Buddhas are venerated in Pure Land traditions and are seen as savior figures, the tradition clearly distinguishes itself from theistic religions, due to its roots in the classic Mahayana understanding of Buddhahood and bodhisattvas, as well as the Buddhist doctrines of emptiness and mind-only.[10][11]
Pure Land oriented practices and concepts form an important component of the Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions of China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the Himalayan regions (including Tibet). The term "Pure Land Buddhism" is used to describe both the tradition's practice and soteriology, which may be better understood as "Pure Land traditions" or "Pure Land teachings" (and is found throughout Mahayana Buddhism), as well as various separate Pure Land sects which focus exclusively on Pure land practice.[12]
According to Charles B. Jones, the most distinctive feature of East Asian Pure Land traditions is that "it offered a chance for non-elite or even morally evil people to attain a goal that was tantamount to the attainment of buddhahood itself: rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitābha, circumvention of the normal working out of their accumulated karma, escape from samsara, and the stage of non-retrogression."[13]
In East Asian Buddhism, the three primary texts of the Pure Land tradition (the "Three Pure Land Sutras") are the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra (Infinite Life Sutra), Amitayurdhyana Sutra (Contemplation Sutra) and the Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra (Amitabha Sutra). The Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra is also an important source, particularly for early Chinese Pure Land.[14] East Asian Pure Land Buddhism mostly relies on the practice of mindfulness of the Buddha, which is called niànfó (念佛, "Buddha recitation", Japanese: nembutsu) in Chinese and entails reciting the name of Amitabha (Chinese: Āmítuófó, Japanese: Amida).[15] However, Pure Land Buddhism also includes a large group of practices which are done alongside Buddha recitation.[3]
Indian History
Mindfulness of the Buddha
Teachings which focus on seeking rebirth in a buddha-field (buddhakṣetra) were first developed in Indian Mahayana Buddhist Sutras, and were very popular in Kashmir and Central Asia, where they might have originated.[17] The methods taught in the Mahayana sources which discuss buddhakṣetras are generally devotional Mahayana forms of the classic Buddhist practice known as mindfulness of the Buddha (Skt. buddhānusmṛti).[18] Andrew Skilton argues that the intermingling of Mahāyāna teachings with Sarvāstivādin meditation traditions in Kashmir led to the Buddha meditation practices which later influenced Pure Land in China.[19]
Remembrance of the Buddha is an early Buddhist practice which taught in the Early Buddhist Texts. According to Paul Harrison, the term anusmṛti means 'recollection', 'remembrance', and, by extension, 'calling to mind', 'keeping in mind' (cf. smriti, commonly translated as 'mindfulness').[11] Buddha recollection was part of a group of anusmṛti practices. In the Anguttara Nikaya, one finds six anusmṛtis: the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, sila (moral observance), caga (liberality), and the devata (gods).[11] In the Sutta Nipata, a Brahmin follower of the Buddha, named Pingiya, notes that even though his physical state does not allow him to be with the Buddha personally,
there is no moment for me, however small, that is spent away from Gotama, from this universe of wisdom, this world of understanding . . . with constant and careful vigilance it is possible for me to see him with my mind as clearly as with my eyes, in night as well as day. And since I spend my nights revering him, there is not, to my mind, a single moment spent away from him.[20]
The Ekottara-agama (EA) also contains various unique passages on buddhānusmṛti. EA III, 1 (Taisho Vol. II, p. 554a7-b9) states that buddhānusmṛti can lead to the unconditioned, nirvana, as well as magic power. This sutra explains that a monk should sit down and "contemplates the image of the Tathagatha without taking his eyes off it...he calls to mind the qualities of the Tathagatha." These qualities which one contemplates include his vajra body, ten powers, his moral qualities, samadhis and wisdom (prajña).[11] According to Paul Williams, this practice of "Buddha mindfulness" gained further importance within Mahayana Buddhism, which had an expanded cosmology that held that there were infinite numbers of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas living in infinite Buddhafields throughout the universe. The practice of mindfulness of the Buddhas was seen as a way to contact these living Buddhas and attain awakening.[21] For example, the Saptaśatikā (700 line) Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states that through the ‘Single Deed Samadhi’ one can quickly attain enlightenment:
The meditators should live in seclusion, cast away discursive thoughts, not cling to the appearance of things, concentrate their minds on a Buddha, and recite his name single-mindedly. They should keep their bodies erect and, facing the direction of that Buddha, meditate upon him continuously. If they can maintain mindfulness of the Buddha without interruption from moment to moment, then they will be able to see all the Buddhas of the past, present, and future right in each moment.[21]
A related idea associated with this Mahayana Buddhology was that through proper conduct, worship, and meditation, one could attain rebirth in the Buddha-field of one of these Buddhas.[11]
The buddha-field concept in India
In the more expansive Mahayana cosmology, there are an infinite number of Buddhas, and each one has a field of activity where they teach and guide sentient beings to awakening. This teaching activity, which is done out of a sense of great compassion, is how Buddhas and bodhisattvas "purify" their Buddha-fields. Indeed, the very existence of a buddha-field depends on the acts of a bodhisattva on their path to Buddhahood.[22] According to Jan Nattier, these ideas may have developed out of meditative experiences which provided certain meditators with "visions of a universe far more vast than had previously been supposed", with many world systems, some of which contained other Buddhas. This introduced the possibility that one could be reborn in these Buddhafields.[23] Indian Mahayanists also held that these buddha-fields had a splendor and purity that matched the purity of the Buddha's mind.[24] Sentient beings who are reborn in these pure buddha-fields due to their good karma also contribute to the development of a Buddha-field, as can bodhisattvas who are able to travel there. These buddha-fields are therefore powerful places which are very advantageous to spiritual progress.[22]
According to Jan Nattier, the wish to be reborn in a Buddhafield may have become popular in India due to the common idea that the bodhisattva path was very difficult and entailed much suffering and self-sacrifice. It also was seen as lasting a very long time, in some formulations, it lasts three incalculable eons (asamkhyeya kalpas), which would mean spending millions of lifetimes on the path.[23]
Not all buddha-fields appear as perfectly 'pure', and some Mahayana sutras speak of three kinds of buddha-fields: impure, pure, and mixed. Thus, an impure buddha-field (like this world, called Sahā - “the world to be endured" - which is Sakyamuni Buddha's field), includes non-Buddhists, immoral people, and so on. On the other hand, purified buddha-fields, like Amitabha's, are described as beautiful places, covered in beryl and gold, without any filth or evil.[25] However, different Mahayana texts explain the nature of Sakyamuni's buddhafield in different ways. According to Paul Williams, some sutras adopt the view that Sakyamuni's buddhafield is impure because, due to his vast compassion, he works to help all beings, even the most impure. Thus, while some Buddhas like Amitabha, teach the beings who aspire to be born in their pure buddha-fields, other Buddhas (like Sakyamuni) "vow to appear as Buddhas in impure realms, tainted Buddha Fields, out of their great compassion."[26] This is the view of Sakyamuni's buddha-field which is found in the Lotus Sutra, which according to Williams "sought to restore Sakyamuni to pre-eminence in the face of Pure Land cults centred on Amitayus and Aksobhya."[26]
According to the Vimalakirti sutra, this seemingly impure world, Sakyamuni's buddha-field, is actually a a purified buddha-field. It only appears to be impure because the minds of sentient beings perceive it to be impure. As Williams explains, the view of the Vimalakirti sutra is that: "The impurity that we see is the result of impure awareness, and also the Buddha’s compassion in creating a world within which impure beings can grow. Thus the real way to attain a Pure Land is to purify one’s own mind. Put another way, we are already in the Pure Land if we but knew it. Whatever the realm, if it is inhabited by people with enlightened pure minds then it is a Pure Land."[27]
There was never any Indian "school" focused on this method, as it was considered one of the many goals and methods of Indian Mahayana Buddhism.[28] There is also very little evidence for an Amitabha cult per se in India according to Williams.[29] Furthermore, the East Asian term "pure land" or "purified ground" (Chinese: jìngtǔ) is not a translation of any particular Indic term, and Indian authors almost always used the term buddhakṣetra. However, it is possible the Chinese term is related to the Sanskrit term pariśuddha-buddhakṣetra (purified buddhafield).[28]
Key Mahayana sources
Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra
The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra gives an early description of the practice of reciting the name of Amitābha as a meditation method, although it does not enumerate any vows of Amitābha or the qualities of his Buddha-field of Sukhāvatī. This sutra is one of the earliest Mahayana sutras translated into Chinese (it was eventually translated into Chinese four times).[11] The sutra focuses on the pratyutpanna-buddha-sammukhavasthita-samadhi which means "the samadhi of the one who stands (avasthita) face-to-face with, or in the presence of (sammukha), the present (pratyutpanna) Buddhas."[11]
This sutra also contains the earliest textual reference to Amitabha, though the context of the reference makes it clear that the Pratyutpanna Samādhi is not exclusively for meeting Amitabha but can be used to meet any present Buddha.[11] According to the Pratyutpanna, a practitioner must first strictly keep to the Buddhist moral code and then enter solitary retreat. In the retreat, they concentrate their thoughts on the Buddha Amitabha and thus practice buddhānusmṛti. They contemplate his qualities (such as being a Tathagata, a knower of the world, teacher of devas and humans) and his body, with the thirty two marks of the great man and a golden color, which shines brightly, sitting on a throne and teaching the Dharma. This practice is to be done for days or even three months, until they have visions of the Buddha (either while awake during the day or in a dream at night) at which point they may worship and receive teachings from Amitabha. Thus they can become very learned (bahusruta) bodhisattvas in this way.[30][11] The sutra also states:
Bodhisattvas hear about the Buddha Amitābha and call him to mind again and again in this land. Because of this calling to mind, they see the Buddha Amitābha. Having seen him they ask him what dharmas it takes to be born in the realm of the Buddha Amitābha. Then the Buddha Amitābha says to these bodhisattvas: "If you wish to come and be born in my realm, you must always call me to mind again and again, you must always keep this thought in mind without letting up, and thus you will succeed in coming to be born in my realm."[31]
According to the sutra, these visions are not said to be the result of the divine eye (or other magical powers), instead the Buddhas appear to the meditator's vision.[30][11]
The sutra also seeks to explain how it is possible to have these visions and what their nature is like. According to the sutra, the nature of the visions are dream-like and the sutra states that they are possible because all phenomena are empty and made by mind.[30][11] According to the Pratyutpanna, these visions are possible because: "this triple world is nothing but thought. That is because however I discriminate things [Skt. vikalpayati, mentally construct], so they appear."[11] The sutra also links this visionary samadhi with the realization of emptiness, stating that "he who obtains the samadhi of emptiness by thus concentrating on the Tathagata without apprehending him, he is known as one who calls to mind the Buddha."[11] Thus, one should not think that these Buddhas actually come from somehwere or go anywehre, they are to be understood as similar to empty space and as not existing in some substantial or objective way, since they are empty, like all dharmas, of inherent existence (svabhavena sunya).[11]
Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtras
The two most important Indian sutras for the East Asian Pure Land tradition are the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, and the Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra.[32] These sutras describe Amitābha (whose name means Immeasurable Light), and his pure buddha-field of Sukhavati (which is said to excell all buddhafields).[33] They also discuss his various bodhisattva vows, which focus on his buddhafield as well as discussing how he attained Buddhahood. As Williams writes, the Longer sutra also states that "those who sincerely trust in Amitabha and desire to be reborn in his Pure Land need ‘call on the name’ of Amitabha only 10 times and they will be reborn there – provided they have not committed any of the five great crimes of murdering fatheror mother, or an Arhat, harming a Buddha, or causing schism in the sangha, or have slandered the Dharma."[34]
According to the longer sutra, those who wish to be reborn in Sukhavati should give rise to bodhicitta, meditate on Amitabha, hear and recite his name, pray to reborn in Sukhavati, and accumulate merit. Then at the time of death, Amitabha will appear to those who have sincerely practiced and wished to be reborn there and lead them to Sukhavati. Bodhisattvas who reach Sukhavati from other lands will also be able to enter the stage of "one more birth" (left until Buddhahood) and they will also be able to be reborn from Sukhavati into other worlds to help beings. From Sukhavati, beings will also be able to visit other buddha-fields to see many other Buddhas.[35] Thus, this buddha-field makes it much easier for someone to attain enlightenment.[35]
According to Julian Pas, the long and short Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtras were composed during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, though he considers the smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha to be earlier.[36] Andrew Skilton writes that the descriptions of Sukhāvatī given in the Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtras suggests that these descriptions were originally used for meditation: "This land, called Sukhāvatī or "blissful," is described in great detail, in a way that suggests that the sūtras were to be used as guides to visualization meditation, and also gives an impression of a magical world of intense visual and sonorous delight."[37] According to Nakamura, the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha might have been influenced by the Lokottaravāda school, since the work has many elements in common with the Mahāvastu.[38]
In the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, Gautama Buddha begins by describing to his attendant Ānanda a past life of the Buddha Amitābha. He states that in a past life, Amitābha was once a king who renounced his kingdom, and became a monastic bodhisattva named Dharmākara ("Dharma Storehouse") and gave rise to the aspiration to achieve Buddhahood in order to help all beings. He also had the aspiration to create the most perfect buddha-field as the ideal place to reach awakening.[39][40] Under the guidance of the Buddha Lokeśvararāja ("World Sovereign King"), innumerable buddha-lands throughout the ten directions were revealed to Dharmākara.[39] After meditating for five eons on how to array the perfect buddha-land, he then made a great series of forty eight vows, and through his great merit, created the realm of Sukhāvatī ("Ultimate Bliss").[39][41][40]
Charles B. Jones describes some of the most important elements of these vows as follows:
this buddha-land will be accessible to all beings who aspire to be reborn there even for “ten moments of thought” (vow 18), cultivate all virtues (vow 19), and, upon hearing his future buddha-name Amitābha, dedicate the merit of their practices to gaining rebirth (vow 20). He will personally appear to such beings at the moment of death (vow 19). Once born in his buddha-land, they will have many of the abilities and bodily features of a fully awakened buddha, such as the divine eye, the divine ear, and the ability to read others’ minds (vows 6, 7, 8), and the 32 bodilymarks of a buddha (vow 21). The requirements that beings irst perfect all virtues and attain such abilities and features before gaining rebirth might lead one to think that they are effectively buddhas upon arrival, but other vows make clear that the purpose of rebirth in this buddha-land is the acquisition of buddhahood. Beings born there are promised limitless time to practice (vow 15), they will never perish and revertto a lower rebirth (vow 2), and they will assuredly achieve buddhahood(vow 11). The land itself is to be so clear and pure that it perfectly relects all other world- systems (vow 31). All the accoutrements of the land will be so finely wrought as to be unperceivable (vow 27), and the land itself, with all its trees and buildings, will be adorned with all seven kinds of brilliant jewel (vow 32).[42]
The sutra then claims that Amitabha has achieved Buddhahood and hence these vows have been fulfilled. It also describes in detail the nature of the “Land of Peace and Bliss”, its beauty, magnificence and comfortable features, as well as the way that the various eatures of the land teach the Dharma to all beings there.[43]
The longer sutra also mentions that beings with little attainment or virtue can reach the Pure Land, though it also claims that how and where they will be born once inside the Pure Land is correlated with their level of attainment. Only those who have committed the Five Heinous Deeds or have slandered the dharma are barred from the Pure Land according to the long sutra.[44]
Other important sutras that discuss buddha-fields
The Akṣobhya-vyūha is the main source for the tradition of the Buddha Akṣobhya and his buddhafield of Abhirati. It is also one of the earliest known Mahayana sutras.[45] According to this sutra, Akṣobhya took various vows to follow the path to Buddhahood many aeons ago. Due to the great merit merit generated by these vows for countless lifetimes, Akṣobhya was able to create a purified buddha-field, a peaceful and blissful place where there is no misery, hunger, or pain and where all beings accomplish the ten good actions.[45] Nattier notes that this sutra does not recommend Buddhahood for all beings in Abhirati, instead some are striving for Arhatship and will attain it there. Also, in this sutra, bodhisattvas do not attain Buddhahood in Abhirati, instead, they advance on the path until ready and then they are born in another world which lacks the Buddhadharma to attain Buddhahood there.[23]
Akṣobhya and his buddha-field are also discussed in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, and the descriptions in this sutra match that of the Akṣobhya-vyūha. Nattier notes that this buddha-field is similar to our world system, with a human realm, heaven realms and a buddha-realm. However, it lacks the three lower realms and there is little suffering even in the human realm, which is a peaceful place without any need to work nor buying or selling, since food magically appears to those who need it.[9]
According to the Akṣobhya-vyūha, attaining rebirth is Abhirati is difficult. Nattier notes that "a tremendous amount of merit is required", and conversely, no specific devotional act towards Akṣobhya is required.[23] One must cultivate the proper roots of merit and purify one's conduct.[46] Those who wish to be born in Abhirati should vow to be reborn there, dedicate all their merit to be reborn in Abhirati, not be selfish, learn meditation and meet with holy people. They should practice visualizing the Buddhas in their buddha-fields and vow to be like them.[47]
The Vimalakīrti Sutra is a text which mainly focuses on wisdom, but it includes various discussions the nature of our world (which is Śākyamuni's buddha-field), and how it appears impure and yet is pure. This discussion was widely quoted by later Chinese Pure Land sources.[48] The sutra also contains a chapter in which Akṣobhya's buddha-field plays a key role. The Vimalakīrti Sutra states that the purification of a buddha-land happens through the purification of our minds: “if the bodhisattva wishes to acquire a pure land, he must purify his mind. When the mind is pure, the buddha-land will be pure”.[49] When the Buddha’s disciple Śāriputra questions the nature of this world which appears defiled, the Buddha states that it only appears impure to certain beings since their minds are impure. The Buddha then touches the ground with his toe and the whole world appears in a beautiful and radiant way to Śāriputra. The Buddha then states that his Buddha-field has always been pure.[49]
In contrast to this view, the Nirvana Sutra claims that Buddha Śākyamuni has his own Pure Land which is not this world, but is many worlds away and is called “Unsurpassable” (Wúshèng 無勝). The Buddha manifests from this Pure Land into our world in order to teach the Dharma.[50]
The Bhaiṣajyaguru Sūtra briefly describes the buddhafield of the Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguru (Medicine Guru), the Buddha of healing, as well as the vows that he made as a bodhisattva.[51] His buddhafield is similar to Akṣobhya's, without pain and totally clean and beautiful.[51] The sutra may have been composed outside of India (perhaps Central Asia) and later introduced into the subcontinent.[51] This Buddha became quite popular in East Asia due to the belief that he could cure disease and enhance longevity.[52]
The Mañjuśrībuddhakṣetraguṇavyūha discusses the future buddha-field of Mañjuśrī.[9]
In Mahayana treatises
Teachings and practices related to buddha-fields are discussed in various Mahayana treatises, including some that have been attributed to Indian masters like Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu.[53] A text attributed to Nagarjuna, the *Dasabhumikavibhāsā (Chinese: Shí zhù pípóshā lùn 十住毘婆沙論, T.1521) which only exists in Chinese, contains a chapter which states that there are many gates to Buddhist practice and that the easy path is that of being constantly mindful of the Buddhas, especially Amitabha.[54] This chapter (number 9, “Chapter on Easy Practice”) which focuses on how birth in Amitābha's Pure Land is a relatively easier path to follow was widely quoted by East Asian Pure Land authors.[55] The authorship of this text has been disputed by some scholars, including Akira Hirakawa.[56][57]
The Indian Yogacara master Asanga also discusses the idea of rebirth in a buddha-field in his Mahāyānasaṃgraha. According to Asanga, sutra statements which say that one may be reborn in a buddha-field by simply wishing to or by simply reciting a Buddha's name should not be taken literally. Instead, the Buddha's intent in saying such things was to encourage the lazy and indolent that were not capable of practicing the Dharma properly.[58]
Another Yogacara master, Asanga's brother Vasubandhu, is credited with the authorship of the short Verses of Aspiration: An Upadeśa on the Amitāyus Sūtra (Wúliángshòujīng yōupótíshè yuànshēng jié 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈, T.1524) which is a commentary on the shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha which describes a five part practice which may have been used as a visualization meditation ritual.[55] Williams notes that the authorship of this work by Vasubadhu is questioned by some modern scholars. The text is known for its focus on faith or trust.[59]
The Dà zhìdù lùn (Great discourse on the Perfection of Wisdom, T.1509), translated by Kumārajīva and his team of scholars, is a large commentarial work on the Perfection of Wisdom. It's 92nd section (juǎn) is entitled “Chapter on Purifying a Buddha-field” and contains much discussion on the nature of buddha-fields and how to attain rebirth there.[48]
Chinese Pure Land
| Part of a series on |
| Chinese Buddhism |
|---|
 |
The arrival of the Pure Land sutras in China
The Mahayana Sutras which teach Pure Land methods were brought from the Gandhāra region to China as early as 147 CE, when the Indo-Kushan monk Lokakṣema began translating the first Buddhist sūtras into Chinese.[60] They include the Akṣobhya-vyūha (centered on Abhirati, the buddha-field of the Buddha Akṣohhya) and the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (which discusses the buddhafield of Amitabha).[61] The earliest of these translations show evidence of having been translated from the Gāndhārī language, a Prakrit.[62] There are also images of Amitābha with the bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta which were made in Gandhāra during the Kushan era.[63]
Somewhat later, the Kuchan master Kumārajīva (344–413 CE) translated the Smaller Sukhāvatī-vyūha (T 366) and other Chinese translators also rendered the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra into Chinese, the most popular being Buddhabhadra's c. 359-429 CE. Over time, the three principal sūtras for the Chinese Pure Land tradition became the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, Amitayurdhyana Sutra (i.e. The Contemplation Sutra) and the Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra.[32]
Regarding the Amitayurdhyana Sutra (Guan-wuliangshou-jing, Sutra on the Visualization of [the Buddha] Immeasurable Life), modern scholars now consider it to be a Chinese composition. No Sanskrit original has been discovered, no Tibetan translations exists and the text also shows Chinese influences, including references to earlier translations of Chinese Pure Land texts. Modern scholars generally accept that the text describes a meditation which was practiced in Central Asia, but with Chinese additions.[64]
In addition to these sutras, many other Mahāyāna texts also feature Amitābha, and a total of 290 such works have been identified in the Taishō Tripiṭaka.[65]
Early Practices and Pure Land
The Pure Land teachings first became prominent in China with the founding of Donglin Temple at Mount Lu (Chinese: 廬山) by Huiyuan (Chinese: 慧遠) in 402. As a young man, Huiyuan practiced Daoism, but felt the theories of immortality to be vague and unreliable, and unrepresentative of the ultimate truth.[66] Instead, he turned to Buddhism and became a monk under Dao'an (Chinese: 道安). Later he founded a monastery at the top of Mount Lu and invited well-known literati to study and practice Buddhism there, where they formed the White Lotus Society (Báiliánshè 白蓮社).[67] He also corresponded with Kumārajīva.[68]
Huiyuan and the Mount Lu community focused on the practice of mindfulness of the Buddha Amitabha as taught in the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra.[69] Huiyuan mainly practiced this method so as to develop samadhi and have a vision of the Buddha Amitābha in the present life and receive teachings from him.[70] The members of the White Lotus also vowed to help each other reach "the spirit realm" or "the west".[71] Today, Mount Lu is regarded as being among the most sacred religious sites of the Pure Land Buddhist tradition,[72] and the site of the first Pure Land gathering.[73]
However, scholars like Charles B. Jones have questioned whether Huiyuan was actually interested in nianfo practice as a way to gain rebirth in the Pure Land. He notes that his letters to Kumārajīva have no mention of this goal and that Huiyan's biography in the Gāo sēng zhuàn (Biographies of eminent monks, T.2059, circa 519) do not name or describe the Pure Land of Sukhavati using classic Buddhist descriptions one finds in the sutras. Instead, this "spirit realm" shows Daoist influences. Hence, Jones does not see Huiyuan as being an actual devotee of Pure Land Buddhism, but instead as simply a Buddhist who practiced nianfo.[74] Huiyan did praise nianfo, and he is recorded as saying that "the nianfo samadhi is preeminent for height of merit and ease of practice."[75] Whatever the case, during the later course of Pure Land Buddhism, Huiyan began to be seen as a patriarch of Pure Land Buddhism who had achieved rebirth in the Pure Land and had visions of Amitabha.[76]
The practice of mindfulness of the Buddha was also taught by the very influential figure of Tiāntái Buddhism, Zhìyǐ (538–597). His Móhē zhǐguān, teaches the Constantly Walking Samadhi (cháng xíng sānmèi) which is based on the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra. This practice entails circumambulating an altar while visualizing a detailed image of Amitabha and sonorously reciting the name Amitabha while also working to realize the empty nature of the visualization. This practice was done for ninety days.[77]
The rise in popularity of Pure Land Buddhism may have been due to the popular idea that human beings were becoming incapable of practicing the Buddha Dharma properly since the world was entering into a decadent or latter age of the Dharma.[78] According to this view, humans need the help of Amitābha Buddha to reach awakening, since in our time, the classic bodhisattva path is just too difficult.[79][80] Pure land ideas thus gave people hope in a difficult world and made the Buddhist path seem relatively easier than the classic Mahayana bodhisattva path which was held to last for countless aeons (kalpas).[80] Another possible reason why this tradition grew in popularity in China was that it addressed an important Chinese concern, the search for immortality (the name of the Buddha Amitayus means "Immeasurable Life").[81]
According to Charles B. Jones, early Pure Land authors in China discussed and debated three different views on the Pure Land: (1) ordinary people could be born in Sukhāvatī, (2) only advanced bodhisattvas could reach Sukhāvatī, (3) Pure Land practicioners attained whatever kind of land corresponded to the purity of their minds.[82] Over time, view 1 won out over the others, so much so that according to Jones, the most essential element of the Pure Land teaching in China is the very idea that non-elite common folk could attain the highest Buddhist goals through simple practices based on Amitabha. This movement was widely embraced by ordinary laypersons. It received a mixed response from the Chinese Buddhist community at large and led to generations of Pure land writings and apologetics.[83]
Tanluan and Daochuo
Before the 7th century, the archeological evidence is quite small for the worship of Amitabha in China. Williams notes that there was very little devotion to Amitabha in China during the third and fourth centuries. However, during the 7th century, there were over 144 images of Amitabha and Avalokitesvara erected in China. According to Williams, "these changes occur during the collective lifetimes of Tanluan, Daochuo (Tao-ch’o; 562–645), and Shandao (Shan- tao; 613–81)."[84]
The Pure Land teachings and meditation methods based on mindfulness of the Buddha (reciting the name of Amitābha and visualizing his form), quickly spread throughout China due to the work of figures like these three patriarchs.[85] It is also in the writings of these patriarchs that the idea that ordinary people could reach the Pure Land of Amitabha was promoted and defended through reliance on classic Buddhist doctrine.[86]
The first patriarch is Tanluan, known for his commentary on the *Sukhavativyuhopadesa. Tanluan was skeptical about the possibility of spiritual growth at the time that he lived. He argues that it is too difficult now to practice the bodhisattva path relying on one's own power (or self-power, through study and meditation) and instead one needed to rely on "other power", that is the power of a Buddha like Amitabha. According to Tanluan, through faith in this other power, one can attain enlightenment relatively easily.[87] Tanluan describes a detailed meditation of visualizing the Buddha Amitabha and reciting his name with sincere faith. He saw the name of the Buddha as a kind of spell which has the power to connect us with the wisdom of the Buddha and his inconceivable realm (acintya-dhātu).[88][89]
This practice has the power to purify the mind of all evil tendencies, since it calls on the power of Amitabha Buddha. Thus, even the worst of persons can be saved through this method. According to Tanluan, once one reaches the Pure Land and achieve awakening there, one's purpose must be to manifest in this world as bodhisattvas in order to help others.[90] Tanluan cites over twenty sutras and over a dozen treatises in his main commentary, including eighty one references to the Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa and twenty one to the work of Sengchao.[89] Tanluan preached his Pure Land doctrine, which had great potential for mass appeal, to monastics, laypeople, Buddhists and non-Buddhists.[89]
The next major influence on Chinese Pure Land was Daochuo, who wrote a work defending Pure land from its critics. Daochuo promoted the view that the world was entering the "last days of the Dharma" (mòfǎ 末法). In this era, the "path of the sages" (shèngdào) which relies on classic Buddhist self-development and on "self-power" (zìlì 自力), was not feasible or effective.[91] Instead the most effect method now was ‘to repent our sins, to cultivate virtues, and to utter the Buddha’s name’ and thus to leave this defiled world for the Pure Land.[90] Daochuo called this “the way of rebirth in the Pure Land” (wǎngshēng jìngtǔ 往生淨土) and associated it with the "other power" (tālì 他力) of Amitabha.[91] In responding to critics of Pure Land Buddhism, Daochuo said that the Pure Land was a conventional truth, a skillful means taught by the Buddhas for the benefit of sentient beings.[92] Daochuo also held that those who had heard the Pure Land teachings had already cultivated good roots of merit in past lives as well as bodhicitta, thus they already had the necessary merit to attain the Pure Land. Thus, in his view, reaching the Pure Land required a certain amount of merit.[93]
Shandao and Huaigan
,_Nanbokucho_period,_14th_century.JPG)
Shandao (7th century) was a student of Daochuo who lived in the ancient capital of Chang’an and focused on spreading the Pure Land teachings among ordinary people (instead of at court). He is said to have had many followers and to have distributed numerous sutras and paintings of the Pure land (which he painted himself).[94] According to Jones, Shandao is the true founder of the Pure Land tradition.[93] This is because, according to Jones, "while Tanluan and Daochuo provided some of the necessary conceptual pieces and served as exemplars, it was Shandao who stated clearly and fully that ordinary beings can attain rebirth in the Pure Land through the power of Amitābha’s vow."[95]
Shandao wrote a large four volume commentary to the Amitayurdhyana Sutra, which he held was taught for the benefit of the common folk (which he sees as exemplified by the character of queen Videhi and in himself).[96] To attain the Pure Land, one must have a deep, sincere trust in Amitabha and deeply desire to be reborn in the Pure Land and then perform the five forms of religious practice. Reciting the name of Amitabha is the main practice, which is supported by the auxiliary practices of chanting the Pure Land sutras, visualization and meditation on Amitabha, worshiping and bowing to Amitabha and praising and making offerings to Amitabha.[96] These practices led to birth in the Pure land, as well as to meditative absorption (samadhi) and visions of Amitabha in this life.[96] While Shandao taught these auxiliary practices, he also held that reciting Amitabha's name ten times was sufficient for rebirth in the pure land.[97]
Jones notes that it was Shandao who promoted the centrality of the oral recitation of Amitabha's name as the main Pure Land practice (which he connected with the term nian), previous patriarchs had not focused on this aspect and had interpreted nian differently.[98] Jones notes that the term niàn 念 can mean both contemplate and recite.[99] Another important doctrinal development of Shandao was the idea that the power of Amitabha's vows not only established the Pure Land, but also caused even the most depraved beings to be reborn there. Previous patriachs like Tanluan had only held that Amitabha's power merely created the Pure Land, where beings would be reborn according to their own merit and bodhicitta. Shandao meanwhile wrote that it was "entirely due to the power of Amitābha’s vows" that someone could attain rebirth in Sukhavati, which also appeared equally as a sambhoghakaya (reward body) to all beings, no matter how depraved they were.[100]
Shandao's disciple, Huaigan (d. 699) was also an important figure in his own right. According to Jones, Huaigan's apologetic Treatise explaining a number of doubts about Pure Land, (Shì jìngtǔ qúnyí lùn 釋淨土群疑論 , T.1960) "added a great deal of philosophical depth to Shandao’s basic framework."[101] The work explains how the power of the Buddha can override individual's negative karma and allow them to see a the purity of the Pure Land and be reborn there among the lower grades of beings. He doesn't reject the more elite and high level practices and attainments (and the idea that they lead to higher ranks in the Pure Land) but he also argues for the idea that even the most defiled people will also enter the Pure Land as part of those of the lowest grade (of rebirth forms), as explained in the Amitayus Contemplation Sutra.[102]
Another influential text written during the time of Huaigan was the Discourse on ten doubts about Pure Land (Jìngtǔ shí yí lùn 淨土十疑論, T.1961). This text was attributed to Zhiyi, but cannot be by him according to Jones and it betrays the influence of Huaigan's ideas as well as those of Tanluan and Daochuo.[103]
The nature of Chinese Pure Land
In China, Pure Land practices were always historically viewed as a practice or method that could be integrated together with the teachings and practices of other Buddhist traditions. As such, many modern scholars argue that no independent Pure Land "school" or "clan" (zōng 宗) existed in China, and it was regarded and practiced as an integral part of other "schools" such as Tiantai, Vinaya and Chan.[104][105][106][107]
According to Charles B. Jones, the Pure Land was most often described in pre-modern Chinese sources as a "dharma-gate" (fǎmén 法門), meaning a path or way of practice. When the term zōng was used, it didn't refer to an institution, but to the "cardinal tenet" of Pure Land teaching.[4] Some Chinese Buddhists might have used Pure Land practice as their main or only practice, while for others it could be a subsidiary method.[108]
Pure Land cosmology, soteriology, and ritual were always part-and-parcel of Chinese Buddhism in general and Chan monasticism in particular. The modern conception of an independent and self-conscious Chinese Pure Land historical "school" with its own patriarchate and teachings, and the associated notion of Chan/Pure Land syncretism, have been influenced by the the work of Japanese Buddhist studies scholars and the enduring legacy of Japanese sectarian disputes over Chinese Patriarchs.[109] In reality, Pure Land and Chan/Zen practice were historically and still often seen as being mutually compatible, and no strong distinctions are made.[110] Chinese Buddhists have traditionally viewed the practice of meditation and the practice of reciting Amitābha Buddha's name, as complementary and even analogous methods for achieving enlightenment.[110] This is because they view recitation as a meditation method used to concentrate the mind and purify thoughts.[110] Chinese Buddhists widely consider this form of recitation as a very effective form of meditation practice.[110]
Historically, Buddhist teachers in China have taken eclectic approaches in their practice by teaching various Buddhist schools of thought concurrently (including Pure Land and Chan), without emphasizing any strict sectarian delineation between them. For example, prominent monastics during such as Tanluan were recorded as having written commentaries on non-Pure Land related scriptures, and there is little evidence of them having advocated for Pure Land as an independent "school" of Buddhism.[111][112] Another example is Hanshan Deqing and many of his contemporaries who advocated the dual practice of the Chan and Pure Land methods, advocating mindfulness of Amitābha to purify the mind for the attainment of self-realization.[113]
Later developments
There were many other important Chinese Pure Land masters besides these three widely known patriarchs (Tanluan, Daochuo, and Shandao). Another important figure was the monk Cimin (Tz’u-mi, c. 680–74), who is known to have visited India. Cimin defended Pure Land Buddhism from the critiques of Chan masters that argued that all we needed to do was practice meditation.[114]
A later figure was Fazhao (died c. 820), who was influential in increasing the popularity of Pure land with the Imperial court. Fazhao is known for standardizing the Chinese classic chant of na-mo a-mi-tuo fo (‘adoration [or prostration] to Amitabha Buddha’), which came to be known as the "nianfo".[115]
Unlike in the Japanese Pure Land of Shinran and Honen, Chinese Buddhist Pure Land practice was never really exclusivist and was often practiced in tandem with other Buddhist methods. Yongming Yanshou (904–975) is one of the many figures which taught the unity of Chan Buddhism with Pure Land practice. For Yanshou, the Pure Land and Chan are really both working for the same thing, the pure mind, since the Pure land is just the pure mind (as the Vimalakirti sutra states). Furthermore, for Yanshou, both methods are just ways of cutting self grasping, since the Pure Land abandonment of self-power is none other than the Buddhist teaching of not-self.[116]
The Tiantai Buddhist master Sìmíng Zhīlǐ (四明知禮, 960–1028) was also known as an important teacher of the Pure Land dharma gate.[117] Indeed, according to Jones, "much Pure Land thought developed within the Tiantai School during the Song dynasty."[118] Tiantai school monks were pivotal in the spreading of Pure Land practice in China during this period. Jones notes that monks such as Shengchang (Shěngcháng 省常, 959–1020), Ciyun Zunshi (Cíyún Zūnshì 慈雲尊式, 964–1032), and Siming Zhili (Sìmíng Zhīlǐ 四明知禮, 960–1028), were instrumental in founding societies for pure conduct and vocal nianfo."[119]
This blending of Chan and Pure Land became more popular during the Mind and Qing dynasties, especially through the work of Yúnqī Zhūhóng (雲棲祩宏, 1535–1615).[116] He was one of the most influential figures of the Ming, along with Yuan Hongdao (Yuán Hóngdào 袁宏道, 1568–1610).[120] Ouyi Zhixu (Ǒuyì Zhìxù 藕益智旭, 1599–1655), was another important Pure Land leader who wrote a wide variety of topics. wrote on a wide variety of topics that included both Pure Land soteriology and precepts.[121]
Another important late Pure Land author was the Yuan dynasty monk Tianru Weize (天如惟則, c. 1286?–1354), who wrote the Questions about Pure Land (Jìngtǔ huòwèn 淨土或問, T.1972) as a dialogue between a skeptical Chan monk who poses questions about Pure Land practice, claiming it is dualistic.[122] Tianru defends the idea that an evil person can attain the Pure Land at death by arguing that at death, a person's power of concentration becomes very strong and that during this special time, they may repent of their past deeds with complete sincerity.[123]
Japanese Pure Land
| Part of a series on |
| Buddhism in Japan |
|---|
 |
From China, the Chinese Pure Land teachings spread to Korea, Japan and Vietnam where they developed in their own unique ways. Pure Land practice was present in Japan since the 7th century. During the Nara period (710–794), several monks taught nianfo (Japanese: nenbutsu) and wrote on Pure Land practice. These included Chikō (709–770 or 781) of the Sanron (Middle Way) school and Zenju (723–797) of the Hossō (Yogacara) school. Chikō's writings teach oral and visualized nenbutsu, with the main goal of attaining samadhi, but also rebirth in the Pure Land.[124]
The most important schools of Japanese Buddhism developed between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. They were mostly influenced by the eclectic teachings of the Tendai school as their founding monks were all trained originally in the school.[125] This school was founded by Saichō (767–822), who studied the Chinese Tiantai school in China, including the nianfo methods taught by Zhiyi.[124]
During the Heian period, Japanese Pure Land continued to develop in Tendai monasteries, such as the Mt. Hiei complex. One early Tendai figure, Ennin, is known for having brought back the practice of nembutsu from China, and this became the foundation for later Pure Land movements in Japan.[126] It was Tendai monks like Zenyu (913-990) and Senkan (918–983) who first developed a distinctively Japanese Pure Land Buddhist discourse and who authored the Amida shinjūgi and Jūgan hosshinki, respectively.[127] Another important early figure of Japanese Pure Land was Genshin (942–1017), a Tendai monk known for his promotion of Pure Land practice and his writing of the Ōjōyōshū (Essentials of Birth in the Pure Land) which teaches Amitabha visualization and nembutsu and which was a very influential for later Japanese Pure Land authors. Genshin held that since we had entered the era of Dharma decline (mappo), the easy practice of nenbutsu was most effective now. However, he did not argue, like later Japanese Pure Land Buddhists, that one should only practice nenbutsu exclusively and instead believed that the nenbutsu practice was to be supplemented by other practices.[128]
Pure Land practice also continued to develop in other Japanese schools of Buddhism. Figures such as Eikan (1033–1111) and Chinkai (c. 1091–1152) of the Sanron school and Kakuban (1095–1143) of the Shingon school all promoted their own form of Pure Land nembutsu based practice.[129]
Apart from these official monastic figures, there also existed itinerant holy men who traveled the countryside preaching about Pure Land practice. These preachers who practiced outside the authority of official temples, were called hijiri. Some were properly ordained, but others were self-ordained or not ordained at all.[124] Perhaps the most well known of these was Kūya (903–972), who was known for taking images of Amitabha with him and for his musical chanting of the nembutsu. He mainly wandered the country ministering to commoners and teaching them to chant the nenbutsu as well as providing other services like burying the dead, making wells and bridges and helping the needy. He was also devoted to Kannon.[130][124]
Pure Land practice also spread among commoners and laypersons, especially due to the rise in popularity of deathbed rituals and popular collections of stories of people who had achieved rebirth in the Pure Land, such as the Nihon Ōjō Gokuraku-ki (Records of Rebirth in Utmost Bliss in Japan) by Jakushin (c. 985).[124]
The independent Pure Land sects
Japanese Pure Land teachings eventually led to the formation of independent Pure Land institutions, as can be seen in the Jōdo-shū, Jōdo Shinshū, Yūzū-nembutsu-shū, and Ji-shū.[131] These new Pure Land schools were part of a new wave of Buddhist schools founded in the Kamakura period (1185–1333), each which tended to narrow its focus around a single simple practice which was promoted exclusively above all others, especially the complex rituals and practices of Tendai Buddhism.[124] This new focus allowed these schools to appeal to a wider base of support among the commoners.[132]
The first of these, the small Yūzū-nembutsu sect, was founded by the Tendai monk Ryōnin (1072–1132), who taught that just chanting nenbutsu as one's main practice was all that one needed to do to complete all virtues. He was influenced by the Huayan idea of interpenetration and held that chanting the nenbutsu not affected oneself, but also affected everyone around us. In his community, practicioners would sign a register and pledge to recite a certain number of nenbutsus per day. They would also hold joint recitation sessions and believed that all members received the collective benefit of their recitations.[133]
Hōnen's Jōdo-shū
Hōnen (1133–1212) was a Tendai monk influenced by Genshin who initially practiced under a successor of Ryōnin at Mount Hiei. Through his efforts, a new independent Buddhist school was established (Jōdo-shū) which focused exclusively on Pure Land practice of the nenbutsu (nianfo).[134][132] Influenced by the work Shandao, Hōnen held that to reach the Pure Land it was only necessary to orally recite the name of Amitabha.[132] One did not need to meditate, perform any rituals, visualize any Buddha, study sutras or do any other practice (as was common in Tendai and Chinese Pure Land). One just had to recite the name with faith and joy. Thus, Hōnen's doctrine favored simple nenbutsu recitation above all other practices. Indeed, he argued that all other practices were inferior to nenbutsu in this degenerate age.[132]
However, Hōnen is known to have scrupulously kept the Tendai precepts, and to have continued to perform rituals and study texts. Thus, he did not teach that one should completely discard all other practices, only that the nenbutsu was supreme and that only nenbutsu could lead to Buddhahood. And yet, he held that other practices (those which Shandao taught as auxiliary to nenbutsu) could enrich one's nenbutsu practice.[132]
According to Hōnen, even the most unethical or lowly people (like fishermen, prostitutes, etc) would be saved, as they were, by simply reciting namo amida butsu. Likewise, one did not have to worry about paying for deathbed rituals or organizing one's last days in any specific way. Simply by reciting nenbutsu now one would be saved whenever death came.[132] This simple teaching became very popular in Japan, especially among ordinary people.[135] Because of his reliance on a single simple practice, Hōnen's teaching was widely criticized as neglecting basic Buddhist ethics and bodhicitta. A notable critique was penned by the Kegon author Myōe.[136] While Hōnen was discrite in his critiques of other forms of Buddhism, some of his disciples were not. A scandal involving rumors of some of Hōnen's disciples and an imperial concubine led to Hōnen's exile and the persecution of some of his disciples.[136][132]
After Hōnen's death, many of his writings were destroyed by the Tendai school warrior monks who also destroyed his tomb. The state also attempted to suppress his teachings, sending many of his disciples far away from the capital and this may have contribued to spread of the tradition all over Japan.[132] There was also a dispute among his followers over the issue of two different doctrinal stances: once-calling (Jp: ichinengi) and many-calling (tanengi). Once-calling held that you only needed to recite nenbutsu once and you would be saved, the many-calling view held that you needed to recite nenbutsu as much as possible. According to Jones, Hōnen had generally held that many-calling view, arguing for sustained practice, but the once-calling view also had some scriptural support. Thus, the debate continued long after his death.[132]
Initially, the Jōdo-shū were a faction (ha) or sub-sect of the Tendai school, but after the 14th century, it developed into an independent tradition, which was more like a loose family of lineages.[132] A particularly influential event was the founding of the Chinzei branch by Benchō (1162–1238) and the subsequent work of Shōgei (1341–1420) to set up a formal training program for Jōdo Shū priests. This meant they no longer needed to study the monasteries of other traditions. The other main lineage of Jōdo-shū is the Seizan (West Mountain) branch founded by Shōkū (1177–1247).[132]
Shinran's Jōdo Shinshū
After Hōnen's death, one of his disciples, Shinran Shōnin (1173–1262) created another new Pure Land school, the Jōdo Shinshū (True Pure Land, also known as Shin Buddhism) which would eventually grow to become one of the largest Buddhist schools in Japan.[137] Shinran had been a Tendai monk who saw himself as unsuited to the rigorous practices of the Tendai sect and became a follower of Hōnen.[137]
After he was exiled and defrocked with his master, Shinran married and remained a layman even after he was pardoned by the state in 1211. He then moved to the Kantō region with his family. It was at this time that he realized his practice of all other Buddhist methods other than the nenbutsu were futile and he entrusted himself completely to the power of Amitabha.[137] Shinran would go on to write some important works on Pure Land thought and practice, mainly the Kyōgyōshinshō and the Tannishō, which discuss the important of total self-abandonment or entrusting (Jp. shinjin) of ourselves to the Buddha Amitabha.[138]
For Shinran, this shinjin - faith or entrusting - became the center of his teaching, which according to Jones, was "a deep conversion experience and the very means by which rebirth became assured."[137] For Shinran, any religious effort arose from a lack of trust in Amitabha's power and vows, which was the only thing that actually led to Buddhahood. Thus, one had to realize that one's own efforts were futile and completely entrust oneself to Amitabha. This total faith expresses itself as the nenbutsu. If someone has not developed shinjin, nenbutsu at least acts as a reminder that one requires salvation from Amitabha, and if one has developed shinjin, it is an expression of gratitude.[137] This entrusting is a total letting go which comes from Amitabha's grace, our own true nature, the Buddha-nature. This is the real "other power" (Jp. tariki) of Amitabha that is beyond the egoistic "self-power" (jiriki) and all notions of self and effort. Thus, other power is not something outside of us according to Shinran, but is immanent as our Buddha-nature.[137]
The fact that Shinran was not a monk meant that he and his followers often did not meet in temples, but in various other places, including private homes, which they might designate as dōjōs. These lay groups or congregations (monto) would also choose their own leaders and meet to practice nenbutsu together. According to Jones, "The development of independent congregations of laypeople managing their own practice and organizations loosened the control that religious orders and the aristocracy traditionally exercised, and it represented a new, more democratic structure for Japanese Buddhism as a whole."[137]
After his death, Shinran's communities remained as independent congregations, and the tradition now known as "Jōdo Shinshū" slowly developed over time. Shinra's sons and family, especially his grandson Kakunyo (1270–1351) and great-grandson Zonkaku (1290–1373) became influential caretakers of the tradition centered on Honganji temple which was built on the site of Shinran's grave.[137] Preaching and proselytizing was an important part of the tradition and there was a kind of equality between men and women (who were also given leadership roles). Rennyo (1415–1499) was one of the most influential figures in Shin Buddhist history. He was the eighth head of Honganji and led an expansion in membership and unification of Shin Buddhism. He also wrote new texts which clarified the doctrine of the tradition.[137]
Ippen
Another, smaller Pure Land sect known as Jishū (時 宗) was founded by Ippen (1239–1289). Ippen was influenced by Hōnen, as well as Zen and Shingon Buddhism.[139][140] He wandered throughout Japan teaching nenbutsu with a band of followers. Ippen taught that not even faith was necessary for salvation, only the actual chanting the nenbutsu alone was needed. This is because he held, like Tanluan, that the mere name of Amitabha contained his entire reality. Amitabha was fully present in the name, since his existence, his Dharmakaya, was all pervasive. Thus, the recitation of the nenbutsu made one's mind non-dual with Amitabha.[140] Because of this, one did not need to generate faith. Faith was a gift from the Buddha, but not something we could give rise to by ourselves (since this was a kind of self-power) and so we should not be concerned with it.[140] Ippen's teaching was very popular and his sect was dominant Pure Land sect for the two centuries following his death, but then it went into decline.[140]
Later developments
Today in Japan, Pure Land schools make up almost 40 percent of Buddhist practitioners and has the most temples, second only to Zen schools.[141] In Japan, strong institutional boundaries exist between sects which serve to clearly separate the Japanese Pure Land schools from the Japanese Zen schools.[110] One notable exception to this is found in the Ōbaku Zen school, which was founded in Japan during the 17th century by the Chinese Buddhist monk Ingen (Chinese Yinyuan Longqi). The Ōbaku school of Zen retains many Chinese features such as mindfulness of Amitābha through recitation and recitation of the Pure Land sūtras.[142]
Upon encountering Japanese Pure Land traditions which emphasize faith, many westerners saw outward parallels between these traditions and Protestant Christianity. This has led many western authors to speculate about possible connections between these traditions.[143] However, the cosmology, internal assumptions, and underlying doctrines and practices are now known to have many differences.[143]
The Pure Land
Contemporary Pure Land traditions see Amitābha expounding the Dharma in his buddha-field (Skt. buddhakṣetra), or "pure land", a region offering respite from karmic transmigration. Amitābha's pure land of Sukhāvatī is described in the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra as a land of beauty that surpasses all other realms. It is said to be inhabited by many gods, men, flowers, fruits, and adorned with wish-granting trees where rare birds come to rest.[144] In Pure Land traditions, entering the Pure Land is popularly perceived as equivalent to the attainment of enlightenment. Upon entry into the Pure Land, the practitioner is then instructed by Amitābha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas until full and complete enlightenment is reached. This person then has the choice of returning at any time as a bodhisattva to any of the six realms of existence in order to help all sentient beings in saṃsāra, or to stay the whole duration, reach buddhahood, and subsequently deliver beings to the shore of liberation.[citation needed]
In Mahāyāna Buddhism, there are many buddhas, and each buddha has a pure land. Amitābha's pure land of Sukhāvatī is understood to be in the western direction, whereas Akṣobhya's pure land of Abhirati is to the east. Though there are other traditions devoted to various Pure Lands, each of Pure Lands except Amitābha's is called by the different name without calling it pure land, and Amitabha's is by far the most popular. Few Pure Land buddhists have practiced the harder Pratyutpanna samadhi.[citation needed]
Sutras of Pure Land Buddhism preach that Dharma brings effects equally without distinction of saints or the imperial family. This is one of the reasons that became most popular among the populace. In addition, it references that benevolences expecting the reward do not have good deeds, and suggests that good and evil may be interchanged in the difference of one's situation. Hence, it was thought that menial persons could be released from the underworld like Hell and arrive at Pure Land easily depending on their good deeds in one's lifetime. However, because this teaching includes extremely difficult subject matter, various denominations or sects appeared over the interpretation.[citation needed]
Pure Land in Himalayan Buddhism
_of_Amitayus_Buddha_Surrounded_by_One_Hundred_Buddhas_-_1975.536_-_Art_Institute_of_Chicago.jpg)
In Tibetan Buddhism, which is a Vajrayana tradition, various practices and ideas which are focused on rebirth in the Buddhafield of Amitabha (as well as other Buddhas) exist as part of the vast repertoire of Buddhist practices found in this tradition.[145][146] These include exoteric (or sutra) and esoteric (of tantric) forms of Buddhist practice focused on the Buddha Amitabha and his buddhafield of Sukhavati.[146] Matthew Kapstein writes that "Sukhavati has long been an important focal point for much of Tibetan devotion," especially among lay devotees who commonly revere Amitabha, Avalokiteshvara and Padmasambhava as three bodies of a single Buddha.[147] He also notes that such an orientation also exists in Nepalese Buddhism.[147]
Georgios T. Halkias notes that the term "Pure Land" can be used in reference to these Tibetan practices and scriptures which are analogous to East Asian Pure Land Buddhist practices. However, he also notes that there has never been an "sectarian, self-conscious movement of Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet" which saw itself as independent of the larger doctrinal and practical worldview of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. As such, Pure Land practices in Tibetan Buddhism are considered one element or orientation within the broader Himalayan Buddhist tradition.[148][147]
Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet has a long and innovative history dating from the era of the Tibetan Empire (8th-9th centuries), with the translation of the Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtras into Tibetan. Tibetan documents from Dunhuang also prove that by the 8th and 9th centuries, Sukhavati and Amitabha were important to Tibetan Buddhists.[149] The Tibetan Canon also includes numerous other Sukhavati-Amitabha oriented texts, including various dharanis (incantations/spells) which claim to lead one to Sukhavati. These include the Cloud of Offerings Dharani, Dharani-Mantra of Amitabha, Recollection of Amitabha, Dharani of the Essence of Aparimitayus, Dharani in Praise of Immeasurable Qualities.[150] However, there are also many other sources which mention other Pure Lands aside from Sukhavati, which shows that this was not the only Pure Land sought after by Tibetan Buddhists during the first and second disseminations of Buddhism.[151]
Tibetan Pure Land works
Tibetan compositions of pure-land prayers and artistic renditions of Sukhāvatī in Central Asia date to that time. Tibetan pure-land literature forms a distinct genre and encompasses a wide range of texts, including aspirational and devotional prayers for rebirth in Sukhavati (Tib. bde-smon), commentaries (’grel-ba) by scholars which discuss Pure Land practice, and esoteric meditations and rituals belonging to the Vajrayāna tradition which focus on rebirth in the Pure land and on the deity Amitābha.[152] The composition of Pure Land oriented literature was popular among major Tibetan Buddhist figures. For example, both Sakya Pandita (a key figure for the Sakya school) and Tsongkhapa (the founder of the Gelug school), compossed Sukhavati oriented works.[153]
Tibetan commentaries focusing on Amitabha and Sukhavati, like The First Panchen Lama's (1567-1662) Swift and Unobstructed Path to Sukhavati, teach methods to attain the Pure Land. In this text, the First Panchen Lama advises that one may use a thangka painting or a statue to help visualize Amitabha in his Pure Land while maintaining a mind oriented towards the good of all beings. The commentary also says that one should infuse all daily activities with this practice.[153]
Another important commentary on Pure Land practice, Training for Sukhavati with Luminous Faith: Sun-like Instructions of a Sage, was composed by the Nyingma scholar Ju Mipham (1846–1912).[154] His work is a classic of the genre and draws on numerous other texts to explain how Pure Land practice works through a synthesis of the "ripening force of individual beings" (sems-can rang-rang gi stobs smin-pa), the "power of reality's potency" (dngos-po'i nus-pa) and the power of Amitābha's aspirations (smon-lam) and wisdom (ye-shes).[155] According to Mipham, rebirth in Sukhavati is an excellent path to nirvana and is based on four causes: recollecting Buddha Amitabha, accumulating countless virtues, generating bodhicitta, and dedicating one's virtues to rebirth in Sukhavati. Recollecting the Buddha with faith and a strong aspiration to be born in Sukhavati are the main causes, while the others are secondary.[155] Mipham also discusses the three major hindrances to birth in Sukhavati: lack of understanding, wrong views and doubt. he also recommends reading, reciting, writing and meditating on the Sukhavati sutras.[156]
Amitabha is generally understood as a specific Buddha, one of the Five Tathagathas, some of the most prominent Buddhas in the tradition. However, in some Tibetan Buddhist writings, Amitabha is equated with the Dharmakaya and with the Dzogchen concept of the basis or ground (gzhi). For example, the great 19th century Dzogchen master Dudjom Lingpa (khrag 'thung bdud 'joms rdo rje), writes: "Emaho, in the self-manifest, pure expanse that is the real Akanistha, the magical field that is gnosis arrayed, is the Dharmakaya of the ground, the conqueror Amitabha."[157] Thus, Matthew Kapstein writes that in this Dzogchen understanding of Amitabha, Sukhavati is "no longer the name of a particular paradise, but rather a metonymic expression for the primordial ground in which the Buddha's gnosis is disclosed."[157]
Pure Land practices
It seems that from the 11th century onwards, Amitabha and Sukhavati became increasingly popular, and this pure land became the most widespread destination sought by Pure Land rituals and contemplations.[158] Amitabha focused tantric practices seem to have become widespread at least partly due to the efforts of the Indian tantric scholar Jetari.[159] One of these practices was popularized by the Sakya school and was a contemplation that one performed just before falling asleep, in which one visualized Sukhavati and the Buddha Amitabha. This "sleep-meditation" (nyal-bsgom) continues to be transmitted in the Sakya school until the present day.[160]
Pure Land works based on Amitabha are found in various other Tibetan textual collections, such as in the compositions of Tibetan masters like Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361), Namchö Mingyur Dorje (1645–1667) and Karma Chagme (1613–1678).[161] Dolpopa is known to have written a commentary on the Larger Sukhāvatīvyuha sutra entitled The supreme means whereby self and others may be reborn in Sukhāvatī.[162] According to Georgios T. Halkias, Mingyur Dorje's Namcho Terma Cycle "contains a unique assortment of ritual practices devoted exclusively to the realization of Sukhāvatī" called The Means of Attaining the Sukhāvatī Kṣetra, which "represents the most original and systematic anthology of Tibetan Pure Land rituals to date."[163] This terma includes phowa practices and extensive visualization exercises where the main mandala is Sukhavati.[164]
The esoteric practice of phowa (mind transference, Sanskrit: *saṃkrānti) is unique part of Tibetan Pure Land practice which is found in various terma (revealed treasure) works like The Standing Blade of Grass (Tib. 'Pho-ba 'Jag-tshug ma) by the Nyingma master Nyida Sangye (14th century) and Namchö Mingyur Dorje's Namcho Terma.[152][165] Phowa is an esoteric technique which ejects the mind stream through the crown of the head directly to Sukhavati at the moment of death.[166] This technique is found as one of the Six Dharmas of Naropa.[167] Since phowa specialists are said to be able to guide the minds of other people at death to Sukhavati, phowa also became a popular ritual that came to be performed for the dying by lamas.[168]
Another important tradition in Tibetan Buddhism are tantric practices based around Amitayus (another name for Amitabha, meaning Infinite Life) which focuses on the longevity and life-giving powers of this Buddha.[169]
There are many other treasure texts (termas) associated with Pure Land practice [170] and tertön Longsal Nyingpo (1625–1682/92 or 1685–1752) of Katok Monastery revealed a terma on the pure land.[171]
Practices
Mindfulness of Amitābha Buddha
Repeating the name of Amitābha is traditionally a form of mindfulness of the Buddha (Skt. buddhānusmṛti). This term was translated into Chinese as nianfo (Chinese: 念佛; Japanese: nenbutsu), by which it is popularly known in English. The practice is described as calling the buddha to mind by repeating his name, to enable the practitioner to bring all his or her attention upon that Buddha (See: samādhi).[172] This may be done vocally or mentally, and with or without the use of Buddhist prayer beads. Those who practice this method often commit to a fixed set of repetitions per day.[172] For instance, the monk Shandao is said to have practiced this day and night without interruption, each time emitting light from his mouth. Therefore, he was bestowed with the title "Great Master of Light" (Chinese: 光明大師) by Emperor Gaozong of Tang.[173]
In Chinese Buddhism, there is a related practice called the "dual path of Chan and Pure Land cultivation", which is also called the "dual path of emptiness and existence."[174] As taught by Nan Huai-Chin, the name of Amitābha is recited slowly, and the mind is emptied out after each repetition. When idle thoughts arise, the name is repeated again to clear them. With constant practice, the mind is able to remain peacefully in emptiness, culminating in the attainment of samādhi.[174][175]
Pure Land schools in Japan have different interpretations of nianfo where they emphasize faith in Amitābha rather than meditation.[176] According to the beliefs of Japanese Pure Land sects such as Jōdo-shū and Jōdo Shinshū, exclusivity of the practice of nianfo/nembutsu over all other Buddhist practices was emphasized by the three Chinese Patriarchs of their purported lineage: Tanluan, Daochuo and Shandao. This stemmed from the writings of Honen, who also interpreted the Three Patriarchs as having advocated for exclusive reliance on Pure Land teachings. However, modern historiography has shown that the Three Patriarchs never focused on nianfo as an exclusive practice; they also taught other techniques such as meditation as well as contemplation exercises.[106][107] For instance, Shandao was noted to be a practitioner who engaged in the austere practices of never lying down to sleep and constantly practicing samādhi and ritual activity, and he is said to have advised other people to do the same. He also wrote extensive commentaries on the complex samādhi practices of visualization.[106] In addition, Tanluan was also noted to have written commentaries on numerous Mahāyāna scriptures, not just Pure Land ones.[106]
Pure Land Rebirth Dhāraṇī
Repeating the Pure Land Rebirth dhāraṇī is another method in Pure Land Buddhism. Similar to the mindfulness practice of repeating the name of Amitābha, this dhāraṇī is another method of meditation and recitation in Pure Land Buddhism. The repetition of this dhāraṇī is said to be very popular among traditional Chinese Buddhists.[173] It is traditionally preserved in Sanskrit, and it is said that when a devotee succeeds in realizing singleness of mind by repeating a mantra, its true and profound meaning will be clearly revealed.[173]
namo amitābhāya tathāgatāya tadyathā
amṛt[od]bhave amṛta[siddhambhave]
amṛtavikrānte amṛtavikrāntagāmini
gagana kīrtī[kare] svāhā
The Chinese use a version of this dhāraṇī that was transliterated from Sanskrit into Chinese characters, called the "Amitabha Pure Land Rebirth Mantra", "Mantra for Birth in the Pure Land" (Chinese: 生淨土咒; pinyin: Shēng jìngtǔ zhòu)[177] also known as the Pure Land Rebirth Dhāraṇī (往生淨土神咒 Wangsheng Jingtu Shenzhou). The full name is "the dhāraṇī for pulling out karmic obstructions and obtaining rebirth in the Pure Lands" (Chinese:拔一切業障根本得生淨土陀羅尼). The translation exists in various forms and this is one commonly used.[175]
Visualization methods
Another practice found in Pure Land Buddhism is meditative contemplation and visualization of Amitābha, his attendant bodhisattvas, and the Pure Land. The basis of this is found in the Amitayurdhyana Sutra, in which the Gautama Buddha describes to Queen Vaidehi the practices of sixteen progressive visualization methods, corresponding to the attainment of various levels of rebirth in the Pure Land.[178] The first of these steps is contemplation of a setting sun, until the visualization is clear whether the eyes are open or closed.[179] Each progressive step adds complexity to the visualization of Sukhāvatī, with the final contemplation being an expansive visual which includes Amitābha and his attendant bodhisattvas.[179] According to Inagaki Hisao, this progressive visualization method was widely followed in the past for the purpose of developing samādhi.[10] Visualization practises for Amitābha are also popular in Chinese Esoteric Buddhism, Shingon Buddhism as well as other schools of Vajrayana.
Going to the Pure Land
Practitioners believe that there is evidence of dying people going to the pure land, such as:
- Knowing the time of death (預知時至): some prepare by bathing and nianfo.
- The "Three Saints of the West" (西方三聖): Amitābha and the two bodhisattvas, Avalokiteśvara on his right and Mahāsthāmaprāpta on his left, appear and welcome the dying person. Visions of other buddhas or bodhisattvas are disregarded as they may be bad spirits disguising themselves, attempting to stop the person from entering the Pure Land.[180][181]
- Records of practicing Pure Land Buddhists who have died have been known to leave śarīra, or relics, after cremation.
The last part of the body to become cold is the top of the head (posterior fontanelle). In Buddhist teaching, souls who enter the Pure Land leave the body through the fontanelle at the top of the skull. Hence, this part of the body stays warmer longer than the rest of the body. The Verses on the Structure of the Eight Consciousnesses (Chinese: 八識規矩補註),[182] reads: "to birth in saints the last body temperature in top of head, to deva in eyes, to human in heart, to hungry ghosts in belly, to animals in knee cap, to the hells-realm in sole of feet." See also: phowa.
The dying person may demonstrate some, but not necessarily all, of these evidences. For example, his facial expression may be happy, but he may not demonstrate other signs, such as sharira and dreams.
When a person dies, at first "good luck at the underworld" is prayed for the dead person. The family remains in mourning for 49 days till the dead person's reincarnation (Pure Land sects may say "till achieving Pure Land"). It is thought that the great sinner transmigrates to a beast or a hungry ogre without being able to go to the Pure Land.
See also
References
- ^ Amidism, Britannica Online Encyclopedia
- ^ Amidism The Columbia Encyclopedia
- ^ a b Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, p. xii. Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- ^ a b Jones, Charles B. (2019) Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, Understanding a Tradition of Practice, pp. 10-12. University of Hawai‘i Press / Honolulu.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 17. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 215. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 216. Routledge.
- ^ Jones, Charles B. (2019) Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, Understanding a Tradition of Practice, pp. 33. University of Hawai‘i Press / Honolulu.
- ^ a b c Nattier, Jan. The Realm of Aksobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land Buddhism. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 23 Number 1 2000.
- ^ a b Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. 2003. p. xiv
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Harrison, Paul M. Buddhanusmrti in the pratyutpanna-Buddha-sammukhavasthita-samadhi-sutra. Journal of Indian Philosophy 6 (1):35-57 (1978).
- ^ Woodhead, Linda (2016). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 142.
- ^ Jones, Charles B. (2019) Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, Understanding a Tradition of Practice, pp. 31. University of Hawai‘i Press / Honolulu.
- ^ Jones, Charles B. (2019) Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, Understanding a Tradition of Practice, p. 128. University of Hawai‘i Press / Honolulu.
- ^ Jones, Charles B. (2019) Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, Understanding a Tradition of Practice, p. 1. University of Hawai‘i Press / Honolulu.
- ^ Schopen, Gregory (1987). "The Inscription on the Kuṣān Image of Amitābha and the Charakter of the Early Mahāyāna in India" (PDF). The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. 10 (2): 99–138.
- ^ Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. p. 104
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 209-212. Routledge.
- ^ Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. p. 162
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 209. Routledge.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 211. Routledge.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 215. Routledge.
- ^ a b c d Nattier, Jan. (2003) The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhåvativyuha.
- ^ Jones, Charles B. (2019) Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, Understanding a Tradition of Practice, pp. 35. University of Hawai‘i Press / Honolulu.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 216. Routledge.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 217. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 217. Routledge.
- ^ a b Buswell, Robert E.; Lopez, Donald S. (2014). The Princeton dictionary of Buddhism, p. 683. (Princeton University Press).
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 239. Routledge.
- ^ a b c Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 212. Routledge.
- ^ Harrison, Paul. McRae, John. The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra and the Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra. 1998. pp. 2–3, 19
- ^ a b Buswell, Robert Jr; Lopez, Donald S. Jr., eds. (2013). Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 867. ISBN 9780691157863.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 240. Routledge
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 240-241. Routledge
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 241. Routledge
- ^ Pas, Julian F. Visions of Sukhāvatī: Shan-Tao's “Commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang shou-fo ching”. pp 8-12. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
- ^ Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 1997. p. 104
- ^ Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey With Biographical Notes. 1999. p. 205
- ^ a b c Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. 2003. p. xvi
- ^ a b Jones 2019, p. 37.
- ^ "Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life: Part 1". Archived from the original on 2011-06-14. Retrieved 2006-08-19.
- ^ Jones 2019, pp. 38-39.
- ^ Jones 2019, p. 39.
- ^ Jones 2019, pp. 39-40.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 231-233. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 233. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 234. Routledge
- ^ a b Jones 2019, p. 36.
- ^ a b Jones 2019, p. 42.
- ^ Jones 2019, pp. 42-43.
- ^ a b c Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 235. Routledge
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 237. Routledge
- ^ Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. 2003. pp. xiii–xiv
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 244. Routledge.
- ^ a b Jones 2019, p. 37.
- ^ Williams Tribe and Wynne (2002). Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition, p. 270. Routledge.
- ^ Ruegg, David Seyfort, ''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India,'' Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1981, p. 29.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 244-245. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 246. Routledge.
- ^ "The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalog (T. 361)".
- ^ Nattier, Jan (2008). A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods, pp. 76-77. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica, IRIAB Vol. X, 73-88; ISBN 978-4-904234-00-6
- ^ Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath. India in Early Central Asia. 1996. p. 15
- ^ "Gandharan Sculptural Style: The Buddha Image". Archived from the original on 2014-12-18. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
- ^ Buswell, Robert E.; Lopez, Donald S. (2014). The Princeton dictionary of Buddhism, p. 332. (Princeton University Press).
- ^ Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. 2003. p. xiii
- ^ Nan, Huai-Chin. Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen. 1997. p. 83
- ^ Nan, Huai-Chin. Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen. 1997. p. 81
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 213. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 243. Routledge.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 129.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 157.
- ^ Dumoulin, Heinrich and James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter (2005). Zen Buddhism : a History: India and China. World Wisdom Inc. p. 67. ISBN 0-941532-89-5.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Takeuchi, Yoshinori & Jan van Bragt (1993). Buddhist Spirituality: Indian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and early Chinese. Crossroad Publishing Company, original from University of Virginia. p. 283. ISBN 0-8245-1277-4.
- ^ Jones (2019) pp. 157-160.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 158.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 161.
- ^ Jones (2019) pp. 110, 129.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 246. Routledge.
- ^ Kawanami, Hiroko; Partridge, Christopher; Woodhead, Linda (2016). Religions in the Modern World (third ed.). Routledge. p. 83.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 246. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 214. Routledge.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 16.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 15.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 246-247. Routledge.
- ^ Nan, Huai-Chin. Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen. 1997. p. 91
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 17.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 247. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 247-248. Routledge.
- ^ a b c Foard, James Harlan. The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing 2006. ISBN 9780895810922. p. 110
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 248. Routledge.
- ^ a b Jones (2019) pp. 18-19.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 249. Routledge.
- ^ a b Jones (2019) p. 20.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 249-250. Routledge.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 20.
- ^ a b c Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 250-251. Routledge.
- ^ Jones (2019) pp. 23-25.
- ^ Jones (2019) pp. 22-23.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 41.
- ^ Jones (2019) pp. 23-25.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 25.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 27.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 27.
- ^ Pas, Julian F. (1995). Visions of Sukhāvatī : Shan-tao's commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang shou-fo ching. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-585-04595-X. OCLC 42854968.
- ^ The Pure Land tradition : history and development. James Harlan Foard, Michael Solomon, Richard Karl Payne. Berkeley, Calif.: Regents of the University of California. 1996. ISBN 0-89581-092-1. OCLC 35319329.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ a b c d The Wiley Blackwell companion to East and inner Asian Buddhism. Mario Poceski. Chichester, West Sussex, UK. 2014. ISBN 978-1-118-61035-0. OCLC 881387072.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ a b Sharf, Robert H. (2002). "On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch'an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China". T'oung Pao. 88 (4/5): 282–331. ISSN 0082-5433.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 247. Routledge.
- ^ Sharf, Robert (2002). On Pure Land Buddhism and Pure Land/Chan Syncretism in Medieval China, T`oung Pao Vol. 88 (4-5), 283-285
- ^ a b c d e Prebish, Charles. Tanaka, Kenneth. The Faces of Buddhism in America. 1998. p. 20
- ^ The Wiley Blackwell companion to East and inner Asian Buddhism. Mario Poceski. Chichester, West Sussex, UK. 2014. ISBN 978-1-118-61035-0. OCLC 881387072.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ Sharf, Robert H. (2002). "On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch'an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China". T'oung Pao. 88 (4/5): 282–331. ISSN 0082-5433.
- ^ Keown, Damien. A Dictionary of Buddhism. 2003. p. 104
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 253. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 252. Routledge.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, p. 253. Routledge.
- ^ Jones (2019), p. 89.
- ^ Jones (2019), p. 110.
- ^ Jones (2019), p. 110.
- ^ Jones (2019), p. 68.
- ^ Jones (2019), p. 87.
- ^ Jones (2019) p. 29.
- ^ Jones (2019) pp. 29-30.
- ^ a b c d e f Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 107-118. Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- ^ Woodhead, Linda. Religions in the Modern World, 3rd Edition. Routledge, 2016. [Chegg].
- ^ Buswell, Robert E. (2004). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 249–250. ISBN 978-0028657189.
- ^ Rhodes, Robert F.; Payne, Richard K. (2017). Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū and the Construction of Pure Land Discourse in Heian Japan (Pure Land Buddhist Studies). University of Hawaii Press. pp. 76–104. ISBN 0824872487.
- ^ Kopf, Gereon (2018). Dao Companion to Japanese Buddhist Philosophy. Berlin: Springer. p. 373. ISBN 9789048129232.
- ^ Stone, Jacqueline I. By the Power of One’s Last Nenbutsu: Deathbed Practices in Early Medieval Japan in Richard K. Payne & Kenneth K. Tanaka (2004) "Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha" (pp. 77-119).
- ^ Rhodes, Robert F.; Payne, Richard K. (2017). Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū and the Construction of Pure Land Discourse in Heian Japan (Pure Land Buddhist Studies). University of Hawaii Press. pp. 64–72. ISBN 0824872487.
- ^ Guide on Buddhism for America[dead link]
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 123-135. Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- ^ Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 119-122. Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 254-255. Routledge.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 255-256. Routledge.
- ^ a b Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 257-258. Routledge.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 136-150. Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- ^ Williams, Paul (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd Edition, pp. 261-263. Routledge.
- ^ Dobbins, James C. (1988). "Review: No Abode: The Record of Ippen. by Dennis Hirota". Monumenta Nipponica. 43 (2): 253. doi:10.2307/2384755. JSTOR 2384755.
- ^ a b c d Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 151-160. Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- ^ Woodhead, Linda. Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. New York: Routledge Publishing, 2016, ISBN 9780415858816 p. 83
- ^ Baroni, Helen Josephine. Iron Eyes: The Life and Teachings of the Ōbaku Zen master Tetsugen Dōko. 2006. pp. 5–6
- ^ a b Bloom, Alfred. The Shin Buddhist Classical Tradition. 2013. p. xii
- ^ Birmingham Museum of Art (2010). Birmingham Museum of Art: Guide to the Collection. London: Giles. pp. 30–31. ISBN 978-1-904832-77-5. Archived from the original on 2011-09-10. Retrieved 2011-07-08.
- ^ Chen, Shu-Chen; Groner, Paul (2007). "Cultural Change of Indian Pure Land Buddhist Teaching in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism". UVA Library | Virgo. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved 2017-08-06. An extensive comparison of Pure Land Buddhism in India, China, and Tibet.
- ^ a b Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, pp. xxv-xxvii University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ a b c Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 17. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. xxviii University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 20. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. 140. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 21. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ a b Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. xxix University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ a b Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. 109. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. 122. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ a b Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. 123. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. 124. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ a b Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 40. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 27. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 27. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, pp. 29-30. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. xxx University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, pp. 29-30. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Halkias, Georgios T. (2012). Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, p. 170. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 32. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 32. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 26. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Kragh, Ulrich Timme (2015) Tibetan Yoga and Mysticism A Textual Study of the Yogas of Naropa and Mahamudra Meditation in the Medieval Tradition of Dags po, p. 355. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies (Studia Philologica Buddhica). ISBN 4-90626-772-6
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, p. 26. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Payne, Richard Karl; Tanaka, Kenneth Kazuo (2004). Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, pp. 25. University of Hawaii Press.
- ^ Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, 2013, by Georgios T. Halkias, University of Hawaii Press, chapter 5.
- ^ Khadro, Chagdud (1998, 2003). P'howa Commentary: Instructions for the Practice of Consciousness Transference as Revealed by Rigzin Longsal Nyingpo. Junction City, CA: Pilgrims Publishing
- ^ a b Luk, Charles. The Secrets of Chinese Meditation. 1964. p. 83
- ^ a b c Luk, Charles. The Secrets of Chinese Meditation. 1964. p. 84
- ^ a b Yuan, Margaret. Grass Mountain: A Seven Day Intensive in Ch'an Training with Master Nan Huai-Chin. 1986. p. 55
- ^ a b Luk, Charles. The Secrets of Chinese Meditation. 1964. pp. 83–84
- ^ Jodo Shinshu : a guide. Jōdo Shinshū Honganji-ha. Kyoto, Japan: Hongwanji International Center. 2002. ISBN 4-89416-984-3. OCLC 154512074.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ Kenneth K Tanaka (1990). The Dawn of Chinese Buddhist Doctrine: Ching-Ying Hui-Yuan's Commentary on the Visualization Sutra. p. 51. ISBN 9780791402979. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
- ^ Luk, Charles. The Secrets of Chinese Meditation. 1964. p. 85
- ^ a b Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. 2003. p. xix
- ^ 淨空法師佛學問答(死生篇) Archived 2015-01-28 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ 念佛感應事蹟
- ^ Taishō Tripiṭaka 1865
Further reading
- Amstutz, Galen (1998). The Politics of Pure Land Buddhism in India, Numen 45 (1), 69-96 – via JSTOR (subscription required)
- Inagaki, Hisao, trans. (2003), The Three Pure Land Sutras (PDF), Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, ISBN 1-886439-18-4, archived from the original (PDF) on May 12, 2014
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). - Jones, Charles B. (2021). Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978-1611808902.
- Müller, F. Max (trans) Buddhist Mahâyâna texts Vol.2: The larger Sukhâvatî-vyûha, the smaller Sukhâvatî-vyûha, the Vagrakkedikâ, the larger Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra, the smaller Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra. The Amitâyur dhyâna-sûtra, translated by J. Takakusu. Oxford, Clarendon Press 1894. Pure Land Sutras.
- Shi Wuling: In one Lifetime: Pure Land Buddhism, Amitabha Publications, Chicago 2006. ISBN 9781599753577.
- Halkias, Georgios and Richard Payne. Pure Lands in Asian Texts and Contexts: An Anthology. University of Hawaii Press, 2019.
- Halkias, Georgios. Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet, with an annotated English translation and critical edition of the Orgyan-gling Gold manuscript of the short Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. Hawaii: University of Hawai‘i Press 2013. [1]
- Johnson, Peter, trans. (2020). The Land of Pure Bliss, On the Nature of Faith & Practice in Greater Vehicle (Mahāyāna) Buddhism, Including a Full Translation of Shàndǎo's Commentary in Four Parts Explaining The Scripture About Meditation on the Buddha ‘Of Infinite Life’ (Amitāyur Buddha Dhyāna Sūtra, 觀無量壽佛經), ISBN 978-1-7923-4208-0.
- Shinko Mochizuki, Leo M. Pruden, Trans. (1999). Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History, Chapter 1: A General Survey. In: Pacific World Journal, Third Series, Number 1, 91-103. Archived from the original
- Shinko Mochizuki, Leo M. Pruden, Trans. (2001). Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History, Chapter 2: The Earliest Period; Chapter 3: Hui-yuan of Mt.Lu; and Chapter 4: The Translation of Texts-Spurious Scriptures. In: Pacific World Journal, Third Series, Number 3, 241–275. Archived from the original
- Shinko Mochizuki, Leo M. Pruden, Trans. (2002). Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History, Chapter Five: The Early Pure Land Faith: Southern China, and Chapter Six: The Early Pure Land Faith: Northern China. In: Pacific World Journal, Third Series, Number 4, 259–279. Archived from the original
- Shinko Mochizuki, Leo M. Pruden, Trans. (2000). Pure Land Buddhism in China: A Doctrinal History, Chapter 7: T'an-luan. In: Pacific World Journal, Third Series, Number 2, 149–165. Archived from the original
- Kenneth Tanaka (1989). Bibliography of English-language Works on Pure land Buddhism: Primarily 1983–1989, Pacific World Journal, New Series, Number 5, 85–99. PDF
External links
