Beginning at a Beginning

We all want our brand of Buddhism to be the best and the highest teaching. The fact is none is the “highest” teaching. All are variations on the original teaching. Because people are very different very different aspects of the Buddha’s Dhamma are attached to and expanded becoming more important than other aspects. This is quite natural. The historical Buddha taught to such audiences catering to their needs and proclivities. The method of teaching was called “expedient means.” It worked well for the Buddha and the Masters that followed him.

Unfortunately later, less qualified teachers thinking they we on the edge of awakening took this notion of expedient means and just setteled it expediency. They introduced their own preconceptions and assumptions into the mix, gained students and cashed in by founding schools. Whenever I find these kinds of insertions I try to weed them out and explain them. Over the past few years we’ve struggled through many popular sutras and found these insertions of preconception and skewed thinking. This has offended some who refuse to hear the Buddha’s Dhamma wanting instead to cling to their own. On the other hand, we have found some very wonderful disciples of the Buddha that have grasped on to reality. As Buddhists we live the truth and work with the facts. If the Buddha did not actually give the teaching it is absurd to credit him with it.

Buddhism is Buddhism is Buddhism no matter where you – or at least it ought to be. The expressions may be different but the teaching is the same. It is easy to blow off the idea of Buddha-Nature as a re-insertion of a soul doctrine. In reality the concept often is used to bring back the concept of an eternal self. Even Dogen Zenji seems to have falled into this trap a few times over his long career with his talk of a Big Self and little self. But he was not referring to a personality. In his masterpiece Genjo-koan he writes, “As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death.” If there is no abiding self, as Dogen says, then how could Dogen then, advocate a self of any kind especially a permanent abiding one. The fact seems to be that he did not. Dogen did not fall into the abiding soul theory that Buddha-Nature and Tathagatagarbha seem to try to re-establish.

When investigating Mahayana literature there are several things we have to keep in mind…

•     While the language of Theravada is straightforward and realistic, the language of Mahayana tends toward the metaphysical, poetic and mystical. Both the Mahayana and the Pali Canons can be talking about the same thing but the language they use makes them often sound like they are from different planets. Whole new vocabularies have to be learned. In theory, just as an example, when examined very closely, the concept of Tathagatagarbha of Mahayana sounds remarkably similar to the bhavanga citta of the Pali Abhidhamma and commentaries. Bhavanga citta is the stream of conscious. Buddha-Nature is suspiciously reminiscent of pabhassara citta (luminous mind) of the Suttas. Pabhassara citta is the unpolluted mind, e.g., the space between two thoughts. Both of these concepts were described as hongaku in Sino-Japanese Buddhism. Hongaku refers to “original enlightenement” or “primal light”.
•    Mahayana Sutras are written in a particular literary style called pseudepigrapha, which means that they are only attributed to the historical Buddha but written after his death by someone else. We find several examples of this in both the Old and the New Testament of the Judeo-Christian sects. It was a common practice in ancient times. Most often these sutras make a tremendous attempt to adhere to the teaching of the historical Buddha. Often, though, the spurious insertions appear and are mixed up with the authentic teaching. This has given Mah   ayana and Buddhism in general a black eye for some folk. This happens especially when the sutra begins to sound like Western religion or New Age esoterica.
•     The historical Buddha never spoke the Mahayana sutras. While attributed to him, the attribution is symbolic of the “greater Buddha” concept. 
•    In the Pali and Theravada teachings the emphasis is on the Buddha as a living being that had a time and place in history. He is the only Buddha of this dispensation. For Mahayana Buddha is a concept that goes beyond time and space. Buddha is the very principle of awakening and not exclusively the man who had rediscovered it. 
•   This is why they can speak of Cosmic Buddhas in terms of living beings occupying space in worlds other than our own. At the same time, these Buddhas appear to be archetypal, nearly shamanic in tone and activity. The methods of communing with these Buddhas are also shamanic. They seem to be, and can be explained as anthropomorphic imagery of archetypal qualities to which we aspire.
•   There are several levels of teaching in the body of Mahayana. There is the earthy and simplified teaching that is found in ethnic communities and among persons of little education or inclination to the mental gymnastics often required in Buddhism. There is also the training and teaching given to the ordained. Ordination comes in many varieties. The Refugee is not trained in the same way that a eight precept ordination would receive, or the ten precept ordained. With each level of ordination the teachings go further and become deeper. Teachings in the Vinaya ordinations are different depending on whether one is ordained in the traditional vinaya, the Bodhisattva vinaya, taken the Bodhisattva vows or received empowerment in one of the tantras during Vajrayana training. Strangely, and again, it is the language but not the intent and meaning of the teaching that changes. Vajrayana teaches nothing different in meaning than do the commentaries of the schools of Pali orientation but the language makes it seem very alien.
•   As mentioned above, intention, emphasis and cultural environment alter the direction teaching might take. If paradise is important to the community then the pure abodes become emphasized and the methods of practice are geared to attain those pure abodes. If awakening without delusion is emphasized just those teachings are maintained and methods devised to achieve that goal. If prosperity is desired then that is emphasized and a method will be devised for that goal. In many schools within various traditions expansion of consciousness is emphasized.

And this brings me to Pure Land Buddhism. It is obvious that the name of this Buddha, Amitabha, comes from some very non-Buddhist sources. The Pure Land practices are ideally Buddhist but the origins of the Amitabha Buddha may not be.

“At the same time that Mahayana Buddhism was establishing itself in the Asian cultures, the Pure Land tradition had also established itself in India. There are few substantive historic materials extant, but early scriptures of this tradition (which later became known as the Triple Sutras) appeared during the initial period of the Mahayana movement. Two of them are of Indian origin and date from about the first century B.C. The third scripture, which dates from about the fourth century, exists only in a Chinese version. It first appeared in what T. Unno describes as the "Central Asian and Northern Chinese cultural sphere". Their basic message centers on the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha to bring all who call upon his name to full awakening.

“By the fourth century, Pure Land was spreading throughout China in various manifestations. By the fifth century over two hundred Buddhist texts mention the name of Amida as the source of power for release from the bondage of our suffering. The great Chinese Patriarch Chih-i, T'ien T'ai founder, made the use of Amitabha Name Meditation an integral part of his great thought, practice, and writings. (Editor’s Note:The antecedent for this practice is found in the Theravadin Tradition and called buddho practice. In this practice the word buddho, “the Awakened one”, is repeated until the mind is still and the Buddha is kept in mind. More about this below.)

“Although the Pure Land tradition matured in China, it reached a very active state of development in Japan as a result of the work of Honen and Shinran. They realized that Buddhism is ineffective when treated as a mere intellectual pastime, rational discipline, or ritual ceremony. Rather, Buddhism is only effective when practiced as a direct Way that engages the whole being...a spiritual Path that is not dependent on academic learning, cultural or intellectual sophistication, or elaborate rituals.

“It was in the sixth century that Japan was introduced to Buddhism, and with it the Triple Sutras. Monks and Nuns were gradually attracted to Pure Land devotional practices as they found their other practices to be generally unfulfilling and lacking in spiritual consolation. At that same time, the general population was effectively excluded from the Path because Buddhism had become essentially elitist, a way followed by the nobility and by the monastics of the time.

“The twelfth century was a time in Japan of great social unrest, natural calamities, and of inner and outer turmoil. It was in this time, in the year 1175, that the Japanese Tendai monk Honen created what effectively became an independent Jodo, or Pure Land School, in response to the spiritual hunger of ordinary, average people, He was also responding as well, as others had before him, to his own inner needs.

“Honen's way consisted of exclusive reliance on the Primal Vow of Buddha Amida, made real in his own life experience by faith as he recited or chanted Amida's name. This recitation, called the Nembutsu, consists of the phrase "Namu Amida Butsu", which means "Homage to Amida Buddha". It is something anyone can do, and does not require either education, or many hours of free time. It can be done any time, any place.

“Honen reached beyond the confines of monasticism to begin the Bodhisattva task of helping everyone to achieve Enlightenment. It was then that Amida's Primal Vow began to play a full and crucial role in Japanese society, opening the door to Pure Land Buddhism for anyone and everyone. 

“Honen's efforts attracted other monks, including Shinran (1173-1263). Shinran was also a Tendai monk 40 years Honen's junior. He became Honen's student, and together they spread the message of Amida's Primal Vow, and the way of entrusting in that vow by reciting the Nembutsu, the hallmark of the Pure Land path.

“As was written at that time, "This is indeed the true teaching which is easy to practice even for ordinary people. Of all the lifetime teachings of the Great Sage, nothing surpasses this ocean-like virtue. Those who wish to leave this defiled world of samsara and aspire for the Pure Land, those who are confused about religious practices and faiths, those who are dark in mind and lacking in wisdom, and those who are burdened with heavy evil karma and many hindrances - should, by all means, esteem the Tathagata Shakyamuni's exhortation and follow the supreme direct path to Enlightenment; they should exclusively hold fast to the this practice and only uphold Faith".

“Shinran had learned, as Honen had before him, that in the Nembutsu there was a direct way of entrusting themselves to the Primal Vow of Amida to bring all beings to an Awakening.

“This is the great gift given to the world in the Pure Land path. It was the gift originally given by Shakyamuni. It was the gift extended by our master Chih-i, and it was the gift personified by Amida. Pure Land is the most widespread school of Buddhism in the world.”

This is the official Pure Land history. While every syllable is true, it is very incomplete and written to express a particular viewpoint. It lacks a lot of what actually happened. There is much controversy on whether, as Shinran claimed, it is a true teaching or not.