Can I just second that? I took formal refuge in a Korean Zen temple called Hanmaum in Anyang with my preceptor being Zen Master Daehaeng Sunim, it was completely the right place for me to do so and the right time too – but it doesn’t make me any less of a Pure Land Buddhist to have done so.

Of course my temple embraces a variety of practices and there is no problem with me having a devotional approach to things and relying on Amida Buddha, so if you can’t find a Pure Land temple in which to take refuge, doing so in a good Zen temple or Zen centre might just be the way to go.

All the best Clint – and Gerald!

Marcus

Welcome to the L8B. I feel somehow your name is familiar, but I couldn’t find record of another comment, so if I welcomed you before, please forgive me.

In any case, yes, I do feel TNH is a bit condescending at times, which is a bit disappointing, but I think also a product of being from a different lineage. Naturally he sees Buddhism through the eyes of his own lineage, so I don’t hold it against him. D.T. Suzuki was indeed a Pure Land Buddhist, and I enjoy reading his writings on the subject. I posted a few here in case you haven’t seen them before.

Yeah, the lack of Pure Land schools in the Heartland is pretty frustrating. Even on the coasts, they’re trying to recover from declining membership as the Japanese-American population is aging, and younger generations are kind of at a cross-roads. How much more difficult for non-Japanese Americans like ourselves.

As for me, I took refuge in the Three Treasures after I first recited the nembutsu. I found that the website http://www.jodo.org/ helped me quite a bit and was the first time I recited it. I hadn’t yet found a Pure Land school until weeks later, but I was already a Buddhist in spirit I suppose. One thing to know about Pure Land Buddhism is that there is much less emphasis on lineage than Zen or Tibetan Buddhism. Because it’s a kind of “Buddhism of the masses”, teachers are emphasized much less. What matters at the end of the day is that someone is reciting the nembutsu somewhere. If you can recite in a group, how much more extraordinary if you can do it alone in the Heartland. If you recite it in a Zen group, that’s great too. That doesn’t make you any less of a Pure Land Buddhist.

Just some thoughts. Hope that helps, and hope to hear from you again soon.

Tones really do matter in Vietnamese, though otherwise Vietnamese is pretty easy.

Arun: glad to finally get the word out. There is a lot more to Vietnamese Buddhism than just Thich Nhat Hanh, and what little I can do to promote it is good.

Michael: That’s a good point. Lately, I have to admit I’ve been rethinking how I understood Shirnan’s teachings, and have to admit that I kind of regret my own recent “parting” from Jodo Shinshu. Oddly, TNH’s book has helped me appreciate some of what Shinran taught, but from a more neutral (less dogmatic) viewpoint.

This is a great post, Gerald! I don’t read much TNH, although he is very popular in the Vietnamese community (also very controversial). I think your comments hit on both the reasons why he’s popular and why he’s controversial. And I appreciate your promotion of Vietnamese culture!

I feel much the same about that TNH book, it has some great passages and is very beautiful and I appreciate that throughout the book, he makes the point that no matter how you see the Pure Land, as really existing or as mind-only the most vital thing is to make life in the Pure Land a reality in the here and now.

“We do not have to go to the Pure Land, it can come to us. Although we are standing right in the world of afflictions, we only have to remember the Buddha and the Pure Land and we have a sense of well-being”. (p.107) So there is convergence there I guess.

And if believing in a real Pure Land and a real re-birth there really is a ‘lower level’ practice, then I’m happy to be at that level and look forward to joining Amida Buddha there.

Kwan Seum Bosal

Marcus

I admit I am not comfortable with the “Pure Land is here, now” doctrine. I can see why someone would teach it, but I just don’t agree with it. I did in the past, but when I started to view the Pure Land as a genuine refuge, and a place to practice the Dharma more readily, I found it more appealing, and easier to grapple with. Honen’s story of the prostitute or of the ex-thief are both examples where someone benefits from a teaching of a real-Pure Land as opposed to the “mind-only” style of teaching. I think King Thai Tong’s writings are very good, but I am leery of his term “lower-level” practitioner. There’s a hierarchy there that makes me uneasy.

Still, I know that TNH and King Thai Tong aren’t denigrating anyone: they’re trying to reconcile the different views, and that’s a great approach.

BTW, the pronounciation of the nembutsu may vary depending on dialects. My teacher was North Vietnamese (she left Vietnam before the War, not after), and said “fuht”, not “foot”, but I also know a lot of overseas Vietnamese who definitely sound different when they talk. I can still vaguely tell the difference when I hear it, though my Vietnamese is all but forgotten.

Yes, one practice we do is with the nembutsu, which we are told, is properly, in the Vietnamese tradition said, “na mo ami da foot”

I get the sense that there are a few subtle levels of practice in this tradition, that the nembutsu works for lay practitioners, but that some monk practices involve more Chan.

And I am more of the second school, you talk about above, that the Pure Land is here and now. It appeals more to my Thien mind.