Pure Land Buddhism and Non-Duality

Say the Name (Amida)
And there is neither
Buddha nor self;
Namu Amida butsu,
Name Amida butsu.

–Ippen (1239-1289)

I can’t remember where I found this (I have a backlog to blog posts that are half-finished right now), but I found this last week, and I wanted to pass this along. The concept is nothing I haven’t seen before in Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, it’s a very common teaching in Jodo Shinshu among other schools, but I think Ippen does a great job of summarizing the teaching. Ippen is another figure in Japanese Pure Land Buddhism who, like Shōkū, isn’t well known, but had a big impact on what we know about Pure Land Buddhism today.

Anyways, the notion of non-duality is an important component in Pure Land Buddhism, but often gets lost in lengthy philosophical debates that the average Buddhist wouldn’t care about. Sometimes it gets expressed in very poetic terms, but these too can be vague and cryptic if you don’t have the right background.

Really, when I read this poem, I think what Ippen is trying to say is that we are not separate with Amida Buddha, just as Amida Buddha is not separate from us. Buddhism in general teaches that there is no individual, permanent identity (better known as “no-self”), but rather our existence is contingent on so many external factors. A tree cannot grow from a seed without water, sun, soil, and other favorable conditions. The tree is not a separate identity in this respect. When the tree grows some fruit, and the seeds fall to become new trees, those new trees likewise are not separate from the original tree. There’s no clean break, if you will. It’s just an endless state of becoming and becoming, like a river flowing. One thing is contingent on another, and so on.

So, when we recite the name of Amida Buddha, in the same way the Buddha becomes a part of us. Our existence is not separate from Amida Buddha; it becomes something else (becoming and becoming constantly). At the same time, the Buddha is not what the Buddha is, if he did not strive to free beings from their suffering and ignorance. Thus, because we suffer, the Buddha exists to liberate us.

Namuamidabu

P.S. Somewhat of a tangent, but in Master Yin-Shun’s book, he takes on the notion of Buddha-nature, and dispels the idea that it is something inherent in the person. Instead, he teaches that when one sets their sights on Enlightenment, Buddha-nature then arises. Buddha-nature, in other words, is contingent on our aspiration for Enlightenment, not the other way around. Likewise, we wouldn’t have the aspiration for Enlightenment if we did not encounter the Buddha’s teachings (or other teachings that happen to reflect the Dharma), so our aspiration for Enlightenment is contingent as well. This actually makes way more sense than the teaching of innate Buddha-nature in my opinion.

I’ll post on that separately though, since I’d like to cite the actual text in case I am interpreting wrong.