|
|
'Compare the contributions to the development of Japanese Buddhism of Shinran, Nichiren and Dōgen. What did they have in common, and how did they differ, especially in their view of the nature of the Buddhist path and enlightenment?'Shinran (1173-1262), Dōgen (1200-1253) and Nichiren (1222-1282) were all important figures to the development of Japanese Buddhism in the Kamakura period (1192-1336). In comparing the contributions they made to the shaping of Japanese medieval Buddhism, I have been inspired by Cook’s article, ߢEnlightenemnet in Dōgen’s Zen’, and his assertion that the thinking of these three men are alike because in their approach “religion becomes possible for the average person in that, ultimately, the only requirement is a steadfast assurance or faith that one is already that than which nothing is more supreme or wonderful, that one has an innate dignity and perfection, and that these can really be actualized through the selfless attention to the mundane structures and demands of daily life.” (Cook 1983, p.28) In my opinion, Cook’s view is too simple to be accurate. In this essay I will attempt to present a nuanced view of essential similarities and differences in the thoughts presented by Shinran, Dōgen and Nichiren. In the following I will investigate Shinran, Dogen and Nichiren’s relations to their original school of thought; Tendai shu. I will further discuss the relations between these three icons of Japanese Buddhist thought in the Kamakura period. I will present a comparative analysis of their attitudes towards faith, Buddha nature and the Buddhist precepts. In doing this, I will make extensive use of their writings. In the case of Nichiren’s writings, it is now commonly accepted that a part of the writings earlier attributed to Nichiren are either of uncertain origination or outright pious forgeries. I haven’t found anything suggesting similar problems concerning the works of Shinran and Dōgen. In the case of Nichiren I have chosen to make use of both works that have been authenticated and disputed works. When I have used a disputed work, I have done so because of the beauty or clarity of the work, and restrained myself to works that are concurrent with the authenticated writings. In these cases, I have mentioned that the work in question is a ߢsacred writing of the Nichiren tradition’; following the standard set up by the Rev. Ryuei M. McCormick of the Nichiren shū order in his writings (McCormick 2000b). Tendai shūShinran, Dōgen and Nichiren were, like most of their contemporaries, influenced by Mappō -thinking - the idea that the Dharma would go through the phases of the True Dharma, the Semblance Dharma, and finally the latter age of the Dharma, called Mappō, where the Dharma would decay and eventually disappear. This period commonly was believed to have started in 1052, and Japan, and especially the country’s leading religious institution, the Tendai shū on Mt. Hiei, did indeed suffer from decadence and power struggles in various forms, and also from various natural disasters (Williams 1989, p.159 and Gosho Translation Committee 1999, ߢIntroduction’). The general idea at the time was that in the time of Mappō, traditional practice no longer could lead to Buddhahood, so the three religious thinkers wanted to make available new, simpler forms, appropriate for this certain age. Dōgen, in the Bendowa (Waddel 2002), and Nichiren, in the Kanjin Honzon-shō (Gosho Translation Committee 1999), made similar statements that zazen and daimoku respectively hadn’t been propagated earlier because the time was not ripe. All three trained and ordained in the Tendai shū, and elaborated on certain aspects of Tendai doctrine and practice. Nichiren elaborated on Tendai ideas about the supremacy of the Lotus Sūtra, and initiated a new form of practice; devotional chanting of its title, the daimoku. Shinran based himself on Hōnen’s Jodo shū, an elaboration on the Tendai shū’s chanting nembutsu. Dōgen learned from Eisai, a Tendai monk who brought Chinese Lin-chi Ch’an to Japan, mixing it with Shingon and Tendai practises. Even if Nichiren originally wanted to restore Tendai practices and return to the teachings of the founder, Dengyo Daishi, a conflict between him and Tendai shū was initiated in 1253 after he had given a sermon at the temple, Seichoji, where he was originally trained. In this sermon he advocated the direct practice of the Lotus Sutra through the daimoku and criticized the practice of the nembutsu, thereby causing the anger of the local steward, Tojo Kagenōbu. Tojo Kagenōbu’s seeking to arrest Nichiren was only the beginning of a lifetime of persecutions. Upon returning from his second exile (on Sado island, October 1271- March 1274), he resubmitted for the second time his treatise, Rissho Ankoku-rōn, to the regent, and when his recommendations still weren’t taken into consideration he decided to follow an old Confucian tradition whereby a man, upon his third admonishment, must retire to the mountains. Thus Nichiren spent his final years in a simple hermitage on mount Minobu, where later a temple, the Myō-hōkke-in Ku-on-ji, was erected (McCormick 2000a, part 2) Shinran was disrobed and sent into exile together with his master, Hōnen, according to some sources because of the lack of obedience towards the precepts among Hōnen’s followers, with Shinran’s marriage as the provoking factor (de Bary 1972, p.331). Other sources claim that Shinran married during his exile, and that the disrobing and exile was caused by Hōnen and his disciples’ insistence on the nembutsu as the only way to salvation Heinemann in Bechert & Gombrich 2002, p.224). Shinran never founded any temples, but met with his followers in private homes. Dōgen left Mt Hiei for Kennin-ji, the temple founded by Eisai, and from there he went on to China where he studied under Ju-chinh, a Tsao-tung Ch’an master. Upon his return to Japan he first returned to Kennin-ji, but was expelled from Kyoto by the Tendai-shū priests because of his refusal to teach anything but Zen (de Bary 1972, p. 359). He then took up residence on the outskirts of Kyoto, where he founded Kōshō Hōrin-ji, but later moved away to the Echizen province because pressure again was put on him not to teach Zen exclusively. In Echizen, land was donated by a loyal follower for Dōgen to found Eihei-ji, the temple where he spent the rest of his life (Kashiwahara 1994, pp. 97-123) View on the Buddhist canon and rival sects.Nichiren was a humble man, as he present himself in one of the sacred writings of the Nichiren tradition; “I, Nichiren, am the son of a humble family, born along the shore in Kataumi of Tojo in the province of Awa, a person who has neither authority nor virtue.” (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.169), but at the same time he was also an uncompromising, relentless critic of both the government and other Buddhist sects, and by all accounts a very outspoken man. His major concern was how to create peace in the country, and based on his reading of the Buddhist canon he was certain that this could only be accomplished if everybody, from the Emperor down to the humblest peasant, would embrace the Lotus Sutra (Hori 2003, Rissho Ankoku-rōn). He condemned all other Buddhist sects, often singling out Hōnen’s Jodo shū, but he also criticized the Zen, Shingon, Ritsu and Tendai schools. “All the Nembutsu and Zen temples, such as Kencho-ji, Jufuku-ji, Gokuraku-ji, Daibutsuden, and Choraku-ji, should be burned to the ground, and their priests taken to Yui Beach to have their heads cut off.” (Gosho Translation Commitee 1999, p.579). In employing such harsh rhetoric, he obviously made enemies, and during his life he was exiled twice, and sentenced to death once, but according to tradition miraculously saved (Christensen 1981, pp.94). In his first major treatise, Risshō Ankoku-rōn, he explained the reason for the strong opinions, and backed it with passages from the sutras: “Speaking of the previous lives of Śťkyamuni Buddha, the Nirvana Sutra states that the Buddha, appearing as King Sen’yo and King Virtuous, killed slanderers of the True Dharma. [...] King Śilťditya of ancient India was a sage who protected Buddhism. [...] Emperor Hs�an-tsung of T’ang China was a wise ruler who protected Buddhism. He executed 12 Taoist masters, eliminating enemies of the Buddha and restoring Buddhism. These examples in India and China are of non-Buddhists and Taoist masters trying to destroy Buddhism. Their sins were comparatively light. On the contrary today in Japan, a disciple of the Buddha is about to destroy Buddhism. His sin is extremely grave; he must be strictly punished without delay.” (Hori 2003, pp.137-8) Dōgen didn’t approve of the Pure Land teachings either. In discussing the lack of true teachers in Japan, he says; “They [previous teachers in Japan] taught people to seek enlightenment outside mind, or to seek rebirth in another land. Confusion starts from this. Mistaken ideas come from this.” (Guidelines for studying the Way, March 6th, 2005, http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/dogen-guidelines.htm) While Nichiren felt certain that all the hardship that Japan suffered were due to the Japanese people’s adherence to a false Dharma, Shinran explained that it all just showed the impermanence of life according to the teachings of the Buddha (Kodera 1979, p.43). Hōnen, Shinran’s master, said in Senchaku Hongan Nembutsu-shū that “people should abandon, close, set aside and cast away the ߢholy way’ teachings” (Hori 2003, Risshō Ankoku-rōn) - which are all, except the Pure Land teachings. Shinran himself took this even further, and discarded all sutras except the one containing the eighteenth Original Vow; the Larger Sutra of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life (de Bary 1972, p.333). About the Larger Sutra of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life he wrote: “these passages give clear testimony that the Larger Sutra reveals the true teaching. It is rare and most excellent, the conclusive and ultimate exposition of the One Vehicle, the precious words disclosing perfect, instantaneous fulfilment, the sincere words praised by all the Buddhas throughout the ten quarters, the true teaching in consummate readiness for the beings of this day.” (Shinran’s Works, March 6th, 2005, http://www.shinranworks.com/majorexpositions/kgssI-1_7.htm - A Collection of Passages Revealing The True Teaching of the Pure Land Way) In his works, Nichiren points out that in setting aside all teachings except for the Pure Land sutras, Hōnen is disregarding the Lotus Sutra, the (Mahťyťna) Nirvťṇa Sutra and the esoteric Shingon sutras - all teachings that supported Tendai doctrine and practice. In the early years of his teaching, Nichiren was still trying to get people to return to original Tendai core ideas as taught by Dengyo Daishi (McCormick: Commentary on Rissho Ankoku-ron, March 6th, 2005, http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/RAR16.html). He wanted to reinstate the Lotus Sutra as the highest of all the Buddha’s teachings as described in the classic T’ien-t’ai classification of the Five Periods, and asserted that the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra encompass all other teachings, Buddhas and bodhisattvas; “In the same way, if one chants Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, then the power of the words Namu Amida Butsu, the power of the mantras invoking Mahavairochana, the power of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, and the power of all the Buddhas, all the sutras, and all the bodhisattvas will without exception vanish before the power of Myoho-renge-kyo [the Lotus Sutra].” (Gosho Translation Commitee 1999, p.732) Dōgen also gave great significance to the Lotus Sutra; “The Saddharma-pundarika-sutra explains the purpose of the various Buddhas having appeared in this world. [...] The other sutras, on the other hand, include provisional teachings of the Buddha, and therefore do not express his real intention. It is a mistake to use the teachings of the other sutras as the basis for determining the validity of those contained in the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra, for without the merit-power of the latter, the former would be valueless. All the other sutras find their origin in this sutra.” (Yokoi 1976, pp.129-130) This doesn’t mean, however, that he was the least bit impressed by Nichiren’s chanting of the title of the Lotus Sutra; “It is utterly futile to imagine that merely moving your tongue or raising your voice has the merit of Buddha-work. Any attempt to equate those practices with the Buddha Dharma only makes it more remote. Moreover, when you open a sutra to read, it should be for the purpose of clarifying the teachings the Buddha set forth [...]” (Waddel 2002, p15) Concepts of Buddhanature and faithAll three stressed faith as very important, with Dōgen advocating reliance on self-power, Shinran on other-power, and Nichiren placing himself in between the two views, placing his practice in the middle between other-power and self-power; “[...] the Lotus Sutra establishes self-power but is not self-power [...] The Lotus Sutra also establishes other-power but is not other-power.” (McCormick 2000b, p.79) Shinran put his faith solely in the saving powers of Amitťbha Buddha; “It is a matter of neither practice nor good acts, neither sudden attainment nor gradual attainment, neither meditative practice nor nonmeditative practice, neither right contemplation nor wrong contemplation, neither thought nor no-thought, neither daily life nor the moment of death, neither many-calling nor once-calling. It is simply shinjin that is inconceivable, inexplicable, and indescribable.” (Major Expositions, The Nature of Shinjin, March 6th, 2006, http://www.shinranworks.com/majorexpositions/kgssIII-50_59.htm) Although stressing the ߢother-power’ of Amitťbha, Hōnen, Shinran’s master, still seems to have felt that chanting the Nembutsu removed the effects of sin, and that the more a person chanted, the better. Shinran elaborated on the other-power elements of Hōnen’s teaching, and taught that one recitation was enough, that any subsequent recitations should only be done in gratitude to Amitťbha Buddha (Williams 1989, p.268 and Harvey 1990, p.164), and that one should be careful not to engage in ߢself-power’, because that could lead to pride. His later disciple, Yui-en, who compiled the Tannishō, the oral teachings of Shinran, clarified that Amitťbha’s great eighteenth vow is for those who cannot save themselves through their own power, but that “one should not dispute with or defame the advocates of Own Power.” (Williams 1989, p.270) Nichiren was torn between the two views of exertion and trust in the saving power of a true teaching, as we can see from two of the sacred writings of the Nichiren tradition. One letter says; “As for the Lotus Sutra, one may recite the entire sutra of twenty-eight chapters in eight volumes every day; or one may recite only one volume, or one chapter, or one verse, or one phrase, or one word; or one may simply chant the daimoku, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, only once a day, or chant it only once in the course of a lifetime; or hear someone else chant it only once in a lifetime and rejoice in the hearing, or rejoice in hearing the voice of someone else rejoice in the hearing, and so on in this manner to the fiftieth hearer.” (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.68), and the other; “[...]if one dyes something repeatedly in indigo, it becomes even bluer than the indigo leaves. The Lotus Sutra is like the indigo, and the strength of one's practice is like the deepening blue.” (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.457). While Shinran chanted the nembutsu, calling on Amitťbha Buddha, and Nichiren chanted the daimoku, the sacred title of the Lotus Sutra, Dōgen emphasized ߢjust sitting’ When Dōgen said “Just to pass the time in sitting straight, without any thought of acquisition, without any sense of achieving enlightenment - this is the way of the patriarchs” (de Bary 1972, p.371) he didn’t teach his disciples; “don’t make an effort”. He taught; “don’t make an effort in order to get something”. He warned against striving for Buddhahood, because such a pursuit would only strengthen the dualistic way of thinking that needs to be transcended in order to realize Buddhahood. Buddhahood should not be attained for one’s own sake, nor for the sake of others, but rather for the sake of Buddhahood itself (Guidelines for studying the way, March 6th, 2005, http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/dogen-guidelines.htm) But he emphasized constant exertion because; ”The Dharma is amply present in every person, but without practice it is not manifested; without realization, it is not attained.” (Waddell 2002, p.8) Dōgen also advocated faith, namely faith in the practitionerߢs own efforts, but not that they put their trust in the saving power of any Buddha; “You should know that arousing practice in the midst of delusion, you attain realization before you recognize it. [...] This is not made to happen by Buddha, but is accomplished by your all-encompassing effort.” (Guidelines for studying the way, March 6th, 2005, http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/dogen-guidelines.htm) The reliance on self-power meant that certain strands of Zen Buddhism disregarded the sutras and relied only on direct transmission (de Bary 1972, p.359). Even if Dōgen himself at times emphasized the direct, mind-to-mind transmission, he also reproached his Zen contemplatives for casting aside the sutras completely; ߢThere are Zen masters of a certain type who join in a chorus to deny that the sutras contain the true teaching of the Buddha. "Only in the personal transmission from one patriarch to another is the essential truth conveyed; only in the transmission of the patriarchs can the exquisite and profound secrets of Buddha be found." Such statements represent the height of folly, they are the words of madmen. [...] Among our worthy predecessors there were many who studied the Scriptures. Therefore, these loose-tongued individuals should be told, "To discard the sutras of the Buddha, as you say, is to reject the mind of the Buddha, to reject the body of the Buddha. To reject the mind and body of the Buddha is to reject the children [followers] of the Buddha. To reject the children of the Buddha is to reject the teaching of the Buddha. And if the teaching of the Buddha itself is to be rejected, why should not the teaching of the patriarchs be rejected? And when you have abandoned the teaching of the Buddha and the patriarchs, what will be left except a lot of bald-headed monks? Then you will certainly deserve to be chastised by the rod. Not only would you deserve to be enslaved by the rulers of this world, but to be cast into Hell for punishment.’ (Tsunoda 2001, pp. 249-250) In Dōgen’s thought, zazen is the expression of enlightenment; it is simply our intrinsic, pure Buddhanature manifesting itself in the actual moment of sitting. This manifestation needs to be repeated again and again, in order to permeate all the life of the practitioner, and the practitioner must exert himself, sitting in zazen, in order produce the proper conditions for him to realize, and actualize, the unconditioned; “Although the Way is complete in everyone, realization of the Way depends on a combination of conditions.” (Helpful advice, March 6th, 2005, http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/helpful-advice.htm:) The following Ch’an story, often cited by Dōgen, illustrates the pointlessness of practicing to ߢget something’, i.e. achieve enlightenment: "Friend, what is your intention in practicing zazen?" Nichiren equated the Buddhanature with the daimoku, and maintained that when people chant the daimoku, they enter the realm of the Buddha’s enlightenment. This view is somewhat similar to Dōgen’s equation of zazen and enlightenment, except Nichiren does not describe Buddhanature in terms of a pre-existent Buddhahood disclosing itself, but rather as a field in which to sow the seed of enlightenment; the daimoku. In some of the sacred writings traditionally attributed to him, Buddhanature is presented as an intrinsic purity, and ordinary beings as ߢentities of enlightenment’ (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.4). However, as Asai Yorin points out in Jacqueline Stone’s Original Enlightenment, this is mostly seen in works that have not been authenticated (Stone 1999, p.69). In his major works, Nichiren refers to Buddhanature as an inherent quality that needs to be first uncovered, and then developed into perfect Buddhahood. This view is supported in the Mahťparinirvťṇa Sūtra; “[...] even though [the Buddha teaches that all sentient beings] have the Buddha-nature, they have not yet cultivated various beneficial means, and so still have no vision of [the Buddha-nature which they are going to have]. Since they still have no vision [...], they have not attained the most perfect enlightenment.” (Takakuso Junjir� & Watanabe Kaikyoku, eds., Taish� shinsh� daiz�kyo, 1924-1934, Tokyo, as cited in Liu 1982, pp.71-72). For Dōgen, sitting zazen was not about nurturing any kind of seed of Buddhahood. Zazen, to Dōgen, was the manifestation of the practitioner’s intrinsic enlightenment. In Dōgen’s reading of the Mahťparinirvťna sutra, all beings ARE Buddhanature, they do not posses Buddhanature - and there is ultimately no possessor and nothing to posses; “All is sentient being, all beings are (all being is) the Buddhanature; Tathťgata is permanent, non-being, being and change.” (Masao, A., 1971, Dōgen on Buddha Nature, eastern Buddhist (new series) 4 (1): 28-71 as cited in Williams 1989, p.114) For Shinran, Amitťbha Buddha himself was the Buddhanature of all living beings (Notes on 'Essentials of Faith Alone', March 6th, 2005, http://www.shinranworks.com/commentaries/essentialnotes3.htm). He certainly did not emphasize exertion. He maintained that at the moment when faith arises we are assured of our rebirth in the Pure Land, and from our faith comes the recitation of the nembutsu. So the recitation of the nembutsu does not eradicate any unwholesome karma, nor does it bring about our enlightenment. We can become enlightened only because we are enlightened from the outset, only through our Buddhanature, Amitťbha Buddha. (Williams 1989, pp.271-274) PreceptsIn a work traditionally attributed to Dengyo Daishi, ߢThe Treatise on the Lamp for the Latter Day of the Law’ it says; ߢIf in the Latter Day of the Law there should be persons who keep the precepts, that would be something rare and strange, like a tiger in the marketplace.’ (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.787). Shinran and Nichiren were both very influenced by this view. Shinran elaborated on his master, Hōnen’s teaching that both good and evil people would go to the Pure Land, because virtue was not the way to receive a rebirth there; faith in the all-encompassing grace of Amitťbha Buddha was. Shinran taught that evil people had a better chance of going to the Pure Land, because cultivation of virtue was a manifestation of self-power and could lead to pride that in turn could lead to destruction of the pure faith in Amitťbha Buddha (Harvey 1990, p.164). Knowing that obedience to the precepts was an unnecessary practice, and that there ultimately is no difference between laity and clerics, Shinran chose to marry and had several children, thus instituting a bloodline of Jodo Shin shū, something never before seen in Buddhism. “In reflecting on the great ocean of shinjin, I realize that there is no discrimination between noble and humble or black-robed monks and white-clothed laity, no differentiation between man and woman, old and young. The amount of evil one has committed is not considered; the duration of any performance of religious practices is of no concern. (Major Expositions, The Nature of Shinjin, March 6th, 2005, http://www.shinranworks.com/majorexpositions/kgssIII-50_59.htm) Nichiren advocated the ߢdiamond chalice’ precept of the Lotus Sutra, discarding the pre-Lotus Sutra precepts, claiming in that ߢonce the practitioner embraces this perfectly-endowed mystic precept, he cannot break it, even if he should try’, as a sacred writing of the Nichiren tradition says (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.481). But in the treatise ߢOn the Four Stages of Faith’ Nichiren actually advocated the traditional practice of the paramitas, the six perfections of a bodhisattva, provided the practitioner has reached a certain level of practice. He explains his view with reference to Chih-i’s formulation, which was again based on the 17th chapter of the Lotus Sutra, The Variety of Merits:”If the beginner tries to practice the five paramitas at the same time that he embraces the Lotus Sutra, that may work to obstruct his primary practice, which is faith.” (Gosho Translation Committee, p.787). According to Chih-i’s reading, practice of the paramitas is not appropriate until the practitioner reaches the fourth of the five stages of practice. Nichiren emphasizes the many different approaches to the Buddha Dharma, according to the capacity of the believer; [:] “The Lotus Sutra is the teaching that enables all living beings to attain the Buddha way. Therefore, the persons of superior faculties and superior capacity should naturally devote themselves to contemplation and to meditating on the Law. But, for persons of inferior faculties and inferior capacity, the important thing is simply to have a heart of faith.” (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.59) Dōgen, on the other hand, stressed the importance of precepts and of the monastic sangha, but especially in his earlier works, he emphasized that adherence to precepts alone didn’t constitute the Buddha’s Way; “If you insist upon disciplinary regulations and vegetarianism as fundamental, make them established practices, and think you can attain enlightenment that way, you are wrong” (Helpful advice, Marc 6th, 2005, http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/helpful-advice.htm:) In these earlier writings, he expressed the view that all could attain Buddhahood, men and women, laity and monastics (Waddel 2002, Bendowa). In later writings, however, he would claim that even if laypeople practiced meditation, they wouldn’t realize ߢnoncontamination’ (Cleary 1992, p.45), and he became increasingly concerned with precepts and regulations within the monastic sangha. In the ߢEihei-shingi’, a compendium of six essays, he prescribes procedures for the monastic community, for instance regulations for eating, conduct in the study hall, guidelines for the temple administrators, and for the trainees when meeting senior monks. Generally, he emphasized the ߢthree pure’ precepts; keep all precepts, practise all good Dharma and save the many beings, and the ߢten great’ precepts; not killing, not stealing, not misusing sex, not lying, not giving or taking drugs, not discussing faults of others, not praising yourself while abusing others, not sparing the Dharma assets, not indulging in anger and not defaming the three treasures. (Buddhist Precepts, March 6th, 2005, http://www.buddhistinformation.com/zen_buddhist_precepts.htm ConclusionShinran, Dōgen and Nichiren were all important characters in the shaping of Japanese Buddhism in the Kamakura period. They were all trained and ordained in the Tendai shū, the most important Buddhist establishment in Japan at the time. They all, each in their own way, reacted against this training and against Tendai doctrine. They all created the foundation for new Buddhist schools, all of them advocating a single-practice approach, as opposed to the Tendai shū which displayed a wide variety in their system of Buddhist training. I cannot agree with Cook’s assessment that the religious approach of the three are alike because of an emphasis on trust in an intrinsic purity, an inherent potential in every living being, which can be made manifest in the practitioners dealing with everyday life (Cook 1983, p.28). I think that Shinran’s approach, although encompassing the view that we already are what we are trying to become, is a much more ߢother-worldly’ one than Cook suggests, since Shinran is in no way concerned with people’s acts in this world, but only with receiving faith through the grace of Amitťbha Buddha. Shinran emphasized rebirth in Amitťbha’s Pure Land as not only a chance to perform spiritual practice leading to enlightenment easier than it can be done in this world of suffering as his master Hōnen taught, but as instant enlightenment, caused by the compassionate vow of Amitťbha Buddha: “When a person has entered completely into the Pure Land of happiness, he or she immediately realizes the supreme nirvana; he realizes the supreme enlightenment. Although the terms differ, they both mean to realize the enlightenment of the Buddha who is dharma-body. As the true cause for this realization, Bodhisattva Dharmakara gave us the Vow of Amida Buddha; this is known as directing virtue for the sake of our going forth in birth. This Vow of directing virtue is the Vow of birth through the nembutsu. To entrust oneself wholeheartedly to the Vow of birth through the nembutsu and be single-hearted is called wholehearted single practice. In terms of the Tathagata's two forms of giving, true shinjin is to entrust oneself to the Vow of giving and be single-hearted; this shinjin arises from the working of the honoured ones, Sakyamuni and Amida.” (Lamp for the Latter Ages, March 6th, 2005, http://www.shinranworks.com/letters/mattosho21.htm) So Shinran’s concern was not so much how to live life in this world, since no act performed by human beings can lead to Buddhahood; “The mind is like a venomous snake or scorpion. Our performance of good acts is also poisoned; Hence, it is called false and empty practice” (Gutoku's Hymns of Lament and Reflection, March 6th, 2005, http://www.shinranworks.com/hymns/shozomatsuwasan6.htm). The most important act beings can perform is thus the complete ߢletting go’, allowing for faith to arise through the compassion of Amitťbha Buddha, and leaving all to him. Both Nichiren and Dōgen displayed a deep-felt respect for this life in their writings, and also showed that they agreed with traditional Buddhism, where a human birth is considered both rare and very fortunate because its blend of suffering and freedom supports and allows for a fruitful spiritual practice (Harvey 1990, p.38). Dōgen said; “It is difficult to be born as a human being, let alone come into contact with Buddhism. By virtue of our good deeds in the past, however, we have been able not only to be born as human beings but to encounter Buddhism as well. Within the realm of birth-death, then, our present life should be considered to be the best and most excellent of all.” (Yokoi 1976, p.58) A sacred writing of the Nichiren tradition says; “Now I have already obtained birth in the human realm, something difficult to achieve, and have had the privilege of hearing the Buddhist teachings, which are seldom encountered. If I should pass my present life in idleness, then in what future life could I possibly free myself from the sufferings of birth and death and attain enlightenment?” (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p.125,) I do however find that Dōgen and Nichiren differ considerably in their ideas about Buddhanature, with Dōgen suggesting a pre-existent Buddhahood in all being, and Nichiren subscribing to a very different idea about an inherent Buddhanature that must be first realized and then developed into Buddhahood. Rather, I find that the three great thinkers or reformers were alike in their assertion that what could lead people living in Mappō on to the Buddha’s Way was a more focused form of practice. I think they advocated single-practice approaches because these often seem to appeal to a very basic part of human nature; the need to do the absolute sole correct thing. Also, Japanese Buddhism in Mappō and the Kamakura period has been repeatedly described as decaying, with corrupt warrior-monks running rampant in the cities, burning down rival temples and ignoring the spiritual needs of the common people, with only one concern; amassing wealth and power (Williams 1989, p.159 and Gosho Translation Committee 1999, ߢIntroduction’, Kashiwahara 1994, pp.314-5, Christensen 1981, p.13). Since it was in difficult circumstances like these that Shinran, Dōgen and Nichiren emerged with their concern for the common people, each of them chose a single-practice advocacy. The common people, who were often illiterate, were increasingly hesitant to rely on the priesthood for salvation. Now they were given understandable, easily accessible ways to work out their own salvation. With these new focussed forms of practice - practices that anybody could perform on their own without any mediator - the common people’s need to connect to the Buddha Dharma in a time of confusion and suffering were satisfied. Noticeable similarities in the three schools of thought are the importance of faith, be it in one’s own inherent potential, a sutra or a Buddha, and the emphasis on the direct access to Buddhahood. I also think that Shinran, Dōgen and Nichiren each felt that since theirs was a good and true practice, validated by the Buddhas, then it would eventually lead the practitioner beyond the practice itself, and into the ultimate reality it both pointed to and participated in. In that way, a focussed form of practice can be said not to simplify the Buddha Dharma per se, but only to simplify the first steps of the way, the starting point. Thus a valid single-practice form will eventually prove its own efficacy by reaffirming itself on a higher level. Certainly all three men had a vast knowledge of the entire Buddhist canon, and were familiar with the various practices in the traditional Buddhist schools of Japan, but they chose to overturn the tradition that they had become so familiar with, in an effort to find the one, true way to liberation, which to Shinran turned out to be the nembutsu, to Dōgen zazen, and to Nichiren the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra. Bibliography: de Bary, W. T., 1972, The Buddhist tradition, New York, Random House, Inc.
|
|