People who first encounter Pure Land Buddhist texts often get hung up on either descriptions of the Pure Land, or even where it is. If you look near the beginning of the Amitabha Sutra, for example, the Buddha describes it’s location like so:
The Buddha then said to the Elder Shariputra: “If you travel westward from here, passing a hundred thousand kotis of Buddha-lands, you come to the land called ‘Utmost Bliss,’ where there is a Buddha named ‘Amida.’ He is living there now, teaching the Dharma.
The literal explanation of this comes from ancient Indian thought, the world (being flat) was connected to an infinite series of other continents and world-systems. Buddhas dwelt in some of these other world-systems, preaching the Dharma, and creating what were called “Buddha-lands”, or pure places. So, in this view, Amida Buddha dwelt in a world-system that was far, far to the West. A “koti”, by the way, is 10,000,000 in old Sanskrit language. In medieval East Asian Buddhism, many writers and monks taught the Pure Land from this perspective as modern geography wasn’t known yet.
Then there are very different explanations of the same statement. In Thich Nhat Hanh’s book, Finding Our True Home, he states that:
The notion that the Pure Land is an exterior reality, a place to be found far away in the western direction, is just for beginners. If we deepen our practice, the Buddha and the Buddha’s land become a reality in our mind.
Others, like Ven. Yin-Shun, take the notion of “west” in a more symbolic sense, without actually rejecting the sense of “direction”. In his book, The Way to Buddhahood, he states:
The Medicine Buddha’s Pure Land is in the east, which symbolizes growth, whereas Amitabha’s Pure Land is in the west, which symbolizes retirement. To liberate the dead, Chinese Buddhists chant the name of Amitabha Buddha; to disperse calamity and prolong life they chant the name of the Medicine Buddha.
So, there are many ways to approach the “location” of the Pure Land. I have to admit that I still tend to see it as a real location, but I imagine “Buddha-lands” and world-systems being other planets or dimensions. Sounds silly, I know. But I do wonder if one were go west (from magnetic north) across space and past various stars and planets, what if there really is a being named Amida preaching the same Dharma as Shakyamuni,* and on a world that has been transformed into a refuge for all beings?**
Maybe I read too much science-fiction. 
Namuamidabu
* – The Dhamma literally means “the way things are” in Pali language, so it’s taught in Buddhism that various Buddhas discover the truth of reality on their own, and point the way for others.
** – The Buddha did teach in various sutras that beings transmigrate from one world to another, so I suppose it could happen. See the Danda Sutta (SN 15.9) of the Pali Canon for example.
This blog is the reflection of my efforts to explore fatherhood, Buddhism and my love of Japanese culture. Anything useful I can pass along makes the Internet hopefully a better place.
I think the idea of a literal Pure Land is very comforting. But if Buddhism is a religion based on reason, how is reasonable to accept the existence of a place for which one has no empirical evidence? Even though I would like to be reborn in such a place in the afterlife, I cannot honestly speak of the Pure Land as though its existence as an actual fact in the same way I can speak of China or the US as places.
So where is the Pure Land? I see it as piece of religious fiction, crafted to express the deepest aspirations of Buddhism. When one shares in this aspiration and resolves to be a bodhisattva to practice wisdom and compassion for the benefit of all beings, one can be said to be born into the Pure Land, regardless of whatever level he or she is at.
I also see the Pure Land as an ideal which Buddhists should strive to attain in this world. Why should we travel across the universe to find the Dharma? Let us heed the words of Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng, recorded in the Platform Sutra:
Prefect Wei then asked the next question, “I notice that it is a common practice for monks and laymen to recite the name of Amitabha with the hope of being born in the Pure Land of the West. To clear up my doubts, will you please tell me whether it is possible for them to be born there or not.”
“Listen to me carefully, Sir,” replied the Patriarch, “and I will explain. According to the Sutra spoken by the Bhagavat in Shravasti City for leading people to the Pure Land of the West, it is quite clear that the Pure Land is not far from here, for the distance in mileage is 108,000, which really represents the ‘ten evils’ and ‘eight errors’ within us. To those of inferior mentality certainly it is far away, but to superior men we may say that it is quite near. Although the Dharma is uniform, men vary in their mentality. Because they differ from one another in their degree of enlightenment or ignorance, therefore some understand the Law quicker than others. While ignorant men recite the name of Amitabha and pray to be born in the Pure Land, the enlightened purify their mind, for, as the Buddha said, ‘When the mind is pure, the Buddha Land is simultaneously pure.’
“Although you are a native of the East, if your mind is pure you are sinless. One the other hand, even if you were a native of the West an impure mind could not free you from sin, When the people of the East commit a sin, they recite the name of Amitabha and pray to be born in the West; but in the case of sinners who are natives of the West, where should they pray to be born? Ordinary men and ignorant people understand neither the Essence of Mind nor the Pure Land within themselves, so they wish to be born in the East or the West. But to the enlightened everywhere is the same. As the Buddha said, ‘No matter where they happen to be, they are always happy and comfortable.’
“Sir, if your mind is free from evil the West is not far from here; but difficult indeed it would be for one whose heart is impure to be born there by invoking Amitabha!
Hi Yueheng,
Excellent points all. I kind of go between the literal Pure Land that I’d like to be reborn into, and the ideal of the Pure Land as Enlightenment here and now (and Amida as something to aspire to).
Your quote from Hui Neng was very interesting (I’ve never read the Platform Sutra, other than cursory glances), but this quote was interesting:
“Listen to me carefully, Sir,” replied the Patriarch, “and I will explain. According to the Sutra spoken by the Bhagavat in Shravasti City for leading people to the Pure Land of the West, it is quite clear that the Pure Land is not far from here…
I once heard this at the local Jodo Shinshu temple where my minister said effectively the same thing. Again the convergence of views among Zen and Pure Land groups surprises me.
I believe the Pure Land is a place beyond our imagination. If it exists, it is beyond what us humans can every truly know until it is reached. It does not matter where it is or what it looks like. It just matters that you have faith in it.
It is no different than any other religion. Heaven, the Pure Land, or whatever, can only be imgained. To say that Buddhism is a religion based on reason and therefore some sort of empirical evidence is required is not logical. No Empirical evidence can truly be acquired for any religion. They are all based on faith.
There is danger in setting up the dichotomy of Saha and Sukhavati as either here or there, real or unreal, created or uncreated. In the Hua-Yen school, it is indicated that Noumenon and phenomena neither preclude nor impede one another, neither do phenomena preclude nor impede phenomena. So to insist that Sukhavati is someplace other than the Saha world would be a partial truth at best, for such would ignore the noumenal identity of both ‘here’ and ‘there’. To insist that Sukhavati is completely identical to the Saha world, would also be a partial truth, for it would ignore the phenomenal marks (or characteristics) indicative of their differences.
We think this way because we are trained to think in concepts and words which deal with things as being either ‘this’ or ‘that’. But the Buddhadharma teaches us to approach apparent and contingent realities with an attitude of “neither this nor that” in order to allow us to get a sense of freedom from being mired in such conditioned views.
If such be true, do we need to deny the phenomenal existence of Sukhavati because we have no empirical evidence of its existence?
Would we need to deny the noumenal identity of Sukhavati with the Saha world if tomorrow we were to discover empirical evidence of the former’s existence ‘ten billion Buddha-Lands to the West’?
Empiricism limits reality to the six dusts (i.e. limited to what we can sense), a stance often repudiated in the Bhuddadharma.
Namo Amitabha Buddhu!
Hello Upasaka Bodhiyana and welcome to the JLR. Thanks for your comments.
Hello Upasaka Bodhiyana and welcome to the JLR. Thanks for your comments.
Thank you for the welcome, and Happy Bodhi Day!
Happy belated Bodhi Day to you too.