Origins of Pure Land

Although we call the tradition “the Pure Land Tradition”, it is unwise and untrue to maintain that there is but one Pure Land Tradition within Buddhism. There are many.

       Indian Pure Land
Afghani Pure Land
Chinese Pure Land
Japanese Pure Land
Tibetan Pure Land
New World Pure Land
Hongaku Pure Land

Each school has commonalities with all other schools but also differences. Indian, Afghani, and Chinese Pure Land Buddhist schools would hardly recognize the Honen (Jodo Shu) or Shinran (Jodo Shin Shu) as authentic teachings yet the Japanese Schools maintain the supreme teaching of the Pure Land School. The Japanese sects would not recognize New World Pure Land Buddhism who claim to have the purest teachings according to the sutras. Hongaku Buddhism’s form of Pure Land attempts to be all-inclusive and recognizes all other form of Pure Land Tradition but has its own unique flavor because it is essentially a Tendai School. The Tibetan schools delve deeply into the tantras while the Japanese Jodo sects disparage of the tantric methods.

It would be good to remember that all of these traditions are merely upayas (methods). The Buddha coined the term upaya kusala (skillful means) for us to judge how something gets you close to enlightenment. If it takes you toward enlightenment it is deemed kusala; if it takes you away from enlightenment it is called akusala. Pure Land Buddhism was not always an upaya kusala.

This Buddhist denomination developed during the Northern and Southern Dynasties Period (420-589), when China was divided into several kingdoms, with the northern ones (the North Dynasty) controlled in the hands of invaders (the China north of the Yangtze River was often invaded in history by nomadic tribes outside of China), and the southern ones underwent a rapid succession of (Chinese) rulers.  Each school upheld their particular brand of Pure Land (Ch’ing T’u) as superior as a matter of “national pride.”

Amitabha worship exploded on to the Northern Buddhist world quite suddenly, it seems, and very forcefully. The Southern Buddhist community had by 250 BCE already established the Theravada School as the orthodoxy. Outside of the Indian Empire Buddhism was a wild and unregulated thing. The followers of the Mahasanghika had moved to the Northern parts of the then “civilized” world mainly because their doctrines were considered anti-Buddha by those in the South.

In the North many feared the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha might not last. In the Nikayas the Buddha himself had predicted that the Dhamma would become degenerate in about 500 years after his death. Coincidently, that is about when Mahayana emerged. The Mahasanghika teachings were bewildering and in total disarray. No real school had emerged out of the “potluck” doctrines that were offered. Even the monastic rules had been rewritten. It was apparent to the Indian commentators that the Mahasanghika sects were attempting to undermine the oldest teachings of the Buddha. The confusing and degenerating states of Buddhist doctrines and monasteries also led many to hope for salvation by faith in the saving powers of the Buddhas, especially one called Amita, who was lauded for the efficacy for his vows.  Any one who called out his name: amituofo (Amita Buddha), in good faith would be reborn in his Buddha-world of Pure Land. Where this Buddha came from was unknown at the time. That mythology had to be developed over time.  It also emerged as the first truly Mahayana school in the new order of Northern Buddhism. Zen was systematized later and Tibetan forms came later.

Amita (meaning: Immeasurable Radiance) resides in the "Happy Land" (Sukhavati) or "Pure Land" to the Chinese, in the Paradise of the West. This may sound very confusing to people who believe in a Buddhism that does not have deities, nor heaven in the Christian sense. It would be good to remember that Buddhism grew in proximity to Hinduism that has many deities. The influence of Hinduism is still strong enough in Mahayana that Siddhartha Gautama himself is sometimes interpreted as part of a trinity (Trikaya): the Body of Essence, the Body of Bliss, and the Body of Transformation. It was quite often taught that when the form of the last that Gautama lived on earth there was also an emanation of the Body of Bliss dwelling in the heavens as a sort of supreme god. In its turn, the Body of Bliss is an emanation of the Body of Essence that pervades and underlies the whole universe.

This "trinity" of Siddhartha Gautama’s identity came from a trinity of the primeval gods in Hinduism, where, some scholars contend, lay the basis of the "holy trinity" in Christianity.  But this interpretation obviously made Gautama a deity.  Together with Amita and some other Buddhas, Buddhism became a polytheistic religion.   

Tanluan (476-542) was the third patriarch of Pure Land Buddhism in China although Honen, founder of Jodo in Japan, considered him the founder and, therefore, the first patriarch of Jodo. According to Tanluan, this Western pure land was created because of the merit accumulated by Amita in his lifetime, before he became a god.  

This land is pure because according to Buddhist teaching, the impermanence of this world is because nothing in this world is pure, it is all made up of composites caused by conditions, making subject to decay and disintegration. Therefore only pure things would achieve permanence. On the surface this seems to contradict the teachings of the historical Buddha who taught that no “thing” could be permanent because all “things” are conditional by definition. Still, according to the Pure Land doctrine, this pure land is achievable through single-minded prayers along with the merit, that is, grace, of Amita Buddha. These factors are sufficient in guaranteeing entry into it through rebirth. This can be compared to the Christian emphasis on faith.

Yet because the attainment of one's entry into the Pure Land is an act of selfishness, one must distribute one's own merit among all to help others to enter it as well.  After cultivation within the Pure Land, one should prepare to come back to this world to help more people attain it. In Pure Land Buddhism, the focus was originally on single-minded prayers to achieve salvation. There is no mention of the reading of Buddhist sutras and originally, no hope to gain enlightenment. Rebirth in the heavenly Pure Land was the only and ultimate goal. Enlightenment and Nibbana (Nirvana) were totally disregarded. This attitude is also found when we look at the original version of the Forty-Eight Vows of Amitabha Buddha.

The background of the Forty-Eight Vows comes from Mahayana Buddhist teachings that assert Amitabha was a king in the remote period of time. Renouncing his kingdom, he became a monk and was named Dharmakara, which means 'Treasury of Dharma'. Inspired by the teachings of the Buddha of that time, Lokesvaraja Buddha, who taught him the way to supreme enlightenment many eons ago. Dharmakara made Forty-Eight great vows for the saving of the sentient beings. The Eighteenth Vow, which is the basis of the Pure Land, are often presented in this way: 'If upon the attainment of Buddhahood all sentient beings in the ten quarters who aspire in sincerity and faith to be reborn in my land, recite my name up to ten times and fail to be born there, then may I not attain the Perfect Enlightenment…'

The “if, then” formula is consistent with the causality teachings of the Buddha. It is the wording of the vows that is interesting. It essentially says, “If this does not happen then I will not become enlightened.” It reads somewhat like a product disclaimer. It seems to indicate either 1) “If you reach the Pure Land and this isn’t why you got there, then I did not achieve enlightenment.” But all of the Forty-Eight Vows read in the same manner. It is possible that one reaches the Pure Land, but it is also possible that the Forty-Eight benefits promised might not occur because Amitabha did not gain enlightenment. It may also be read as 2) you might reach the Pure Land because Amitabha never became enlightened. In other words, the reading of the Sanskrit version of the vows, as well as the Chinese one, does not guarantee either benefits or that the Pure Land is actually there in the ways stated.

Honen’s version of the vows read, “If, when I am to attain Buddhahood, the realms of hell beings, starving spirits, or animals are in my and, I will not realize enlightenment.” – the first vow. All other vows have the same formula. The wording is identical to the Chinese and Sanskrit version. The formula raises an interesting problem: the bodhisattva Dharmakara states clearly that he will attain Buddhahood in one clause but in another clause says he might not be enlightened at that time because conditions have to met. These conditions are dependent upon the status and even appearance of others. In each of the Forty-Eight vows the formula is the same, “when I attain Buddhahood, things gave to be a certain way or else I am an unenlightened Buddha.” Another way of rewriting the formula is “When I attain Buddhahood, if the realms of hell beings, starving spirits, or animals are in my and, I will not realize enlightenment.” It is not that he will not have realized enlightenment it is that he will not realize it, even after attaining Buddhahood. The “will not have had”, the future perfect tense not only exists in French and English but also in Sanskrit and Chinese.

Pure Land apologists have rewritten the formula to read “Provided I become a Buddha, if in my Buddha-land there should be either hell, or the animal state of existence, or the realm of hungry ghosts, then may I not attain enlightenment.” This is the formula the best matches the view of contemporary Amidists with how they want Amitabha to exist, as a fully enlightened being, but does not match the language of the original manuscripts. Even this version is awkward. It’s a logical inconsistency. It too implies that if Dharmakara becomes a Buddha and “such and such” should happen, then may Dharmakara not become enlightened. When would this enlightenment take place, before or after his attainment of Buddhahood?

There was a reason for this original formulation. Even as early as the 1^st century CE the Mahasanghika believed enlightenment was impossible for ordinary people, even someone as accomplished as the future Amitabha could not attain it. According to the founder of the Mahasanghika movement, Mahadeva, not even the Arahants, who are enlightened by definition, were really enlightened.  Further, the Buddha was said to have taught and enlightened persons in the hell realms, hungry ghost realms and even taught that enlightenment was possible for all sentient beings. The first of the vows denies that possibility outright. It was inconceivable to the followers of the sect that anyone in any part of the Samsaric world could become fully enlightened while still in human form. The form of the being had to be a somewhat “glorified” body. Have we heard this before? It is a standard teaching in both Christianity and Hinduism.

The third vow is written as “If, when I am to attain Buddhahood, the humans and heavenly beings in my land are not golden in color, I will not realize enlightenment.” This eventually led to the understanding that persons who have attained non-returner status would radiate like fine gold in the Pure Lands. It would be good to remember that the people of Gandhari were Uigars. They worked for the Mongolians and traded with the Chinese. Each referred to themselves as the “Golden People” just as they referred to the Uigars as the “people with colored eyes.” The Mongolians were seen as the superior race. The third vow is made in deference to that political fact. It also served to reinforce the idea of a “glorified” body.

The Forty-Eight vows are filled with both political and social allusions and when fully understood bring a new light to the original motivation behind the vows and the formation of the Pure Land sect on the Silk Road where it was given birth.

Part of the intention behind the vows and the Pure Land formulation was to undermine the Southern Sthaviras, now called the Theravada Tradition. Most of the sects that grew out of the Mahasanghika and later evolved into Mahayana recruited members through the undermining their only real competitors, the Theravada, which was said to be too difficult for the average person, and even though they adhered to the only known original canon, were called inauthentic. Much was also taught for the benefit of the political masters of the times. Many of the translators were also civil servants of the Empire and it behooved them to make references favorable to the rulers. The vows are no different and fit well into these categories.

The vows come from the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life, commonly called the “Larger Amitabha Sutra”. It may have been originally written in Sanskrit around 150 CE and then translated into Chinese. It seems to be a lifted from the Mahavastu, “Great Events” which is a Mahayana version of the Jataka Tales, the former incarnations of Shakyamuni Buddha. In it’s turn, the Jataka Tales were a compilation of Hindu reincarnation stories. The Buddha’s name replaced the original protagonists. Internal evidence shows that it was originally written in the Ghandhari. Contemporary Pure Land teachers maintain the vows go back to Shakyamuni Buddha in the 6^th century BCE. While the Jataka Tales was meant to be teaching stories and symbolic, the Larger Amitabha Sutra was taken literally.

After five eons of self-cultivation the Bodhisattva Dharmakara finally attained the “Supreme Enlightenment” and became the Buddha Amitabha. This means that his grand and infinitely compassionate vow became a reality, the paradise known as Pure Land or Sukhavati has been established, and suffering beings must and will be delivered if and only if they will have the full faith to call upon his name.

So who is Amitabha? There is no record of such a Buddha in the traditional Canon the form of

 this Buddha appears to have crystallized around. There is also no reference to Lokesvaraja Buddha.

The first known written evidence for Amitabha is the bottom part of a statue found in Govindnagar, Pakistan and now located at the Mathura Museum. The statue is dated to "the 28th year of the reign of Huviska", sometime in the latter half of the 2nd century CE, during the period of the Kusana Empire), and was apparently dedicated to "Amitabha Buddha" by a family of merchants.

Pure Land Buddhism had its roots in Central Asia amongst the Zoroastrian and Manichean peoples. Many scholars, mainly non-Pure Land practitioners, believe that Amitabha is a conflagration between Mithras, the sun god and a conception of the Buddha as a cosmic figure bigger than humanly possible. The majority of contemporary scholars, both Buddhist and non-Buddhists, presently advocate for the non-Buddhist origin of Amitabha. Only teachers within the Pure Land community still claim Amitabha (Amida, Amitu, etc.) is of exclusively Buddhist origin. These scholars also maintain that Buddha also spoke the Three Pure Land Sutras, The Lotus Sutra, and the literally thousands of other Mahayana sutras. Scholarship suggests that almost all the Mahayana scriptures are apocryphal, composed and written after the Buddha’s death and the schism between Theravada and Mahayana.

Some of the linguistic issues are

• Mithras, the Zoroastrian sun god has a title that is a direct cognate identical to that of Amitabha; that is, “immeasurable light.”
• The Zoroastrian primordial principle of zrvan akarana, “infinite time” seems to be one plausible origin of Amitayus, “infinite life.”
• There is also the influence of Indian religious sects such as the Vishnu mythology where Vishnu’s incarnation as Varuna of the Western Quarter is called Amitaujas meaning “immeasurable power” or “infinite power.” From this we get the formula, Amitabha, Buddha of the Western Pure Land.

Given that the Vishnu mythology found greatest strength in the Northern part of India, especially in the Kushan Empire region of the Indus River Valley, the Vishnu formulation seems to work most favorably. Archeological evidence demonstrates that Pure Land Buddhism began in this area. At the same time, as one gets closer to the Silk Road and the Himalayan foothills the Zoroastrian connection seems to also fit. Both the Vishnu mythology and Zoroastrianism pre-dates the current dispensation of Buddhism; that is, historical Buddhism, by quite a few centuries. It seems very likely that over a period of century or two the co-existence of Zoroastrianism, Vishnu worship and the lust for a cosmic Buddha all came together to create the formula that we call Amitabha in Pure Land Buddhism today.

But the Pure Land traditions evolved. They are not now the same sects that they were in the beginning. Effort has been put into reconciling the original teachings with the later concepts. The Pure Land imagery is taken to be symbolic and metaphorical and not taken so literally any more. The Pure Land has been transformed into the “pure mind-pure body” concept over the centuries. Amitabha is not so much a real being as much a metaphor for the “original mind” or luminous mind. If the metaphors and symbols are taken to their logical conclusion, the teachings do not contradict the Pali Canon or Abhidhamma any longer. But people being what they are cling to permanence and desire. We don’t want to die; we hope to be transformed and live forever. The Pure Land mythology satisfies that hope. It gives sustenance to the soul theory that the Buddha negated.

There is much in contemporary Pure Land that is beautiful and admirable and very consistent with the teachings of the Buddha. These need to be explored.