Yeah, I think Yin-Shun’s strength is that he doesn’t get bogged down in sectarianism, though in his writings he makes it clear that he probably still has some bias due to his training in the San-Lun school (Madhyamika).

The catch with Honen’s teaching, and the one that bothers me from time to time, is his blanket-statement that it’s impossible. In other times, he only states that for “common people” it is impossible, but then at times he seems to take a different approach citing Dharma Decline and all that.

Lately, I have strong doubt toward this statement, or at least, I think he may have a point, but that it is right for him, in his time and so on. Yin-Shun takes a somewhat different take on the Pure Land, avoiding the whole belief in Dharma Decline altogether, and just saying that the Pure Land approach is one of many paths, and may be suited for people who don’t have the confidence otherwise.

I tend to favor Yin-Shun’s interpretation because it is not so contingent on 1) Japanese history at the time, 2) the writings of Shan-tao (one Buddhist master in a rather broad history of such) and 3) seems to agree more with some lesser-read aspects of the Pure Land sutras.

The differences are not so great as I am implying here, but where Honen’s viewpoint is pretty pessimistic, Yin-Shun’s is more practical and optomistic.

Be Well-

Gary

I would highly recommend reading Ven. Yin-Shun’s book if you could since he is a Ch’an master, and of similar background. I think you might be misreading my point. He is advocating a comprehensive approach where one does not rely on a single “magic bullet” practice, but does a more comprehensive approach. I believe Zen does not actually deny this either, which is why zen trainees go through a daily routine of sutra chanting, prostrations as well as zazen.

My something for nothing comment was more directed toward my own background of Pure Land Buddhism (the blog post kind of switches points halfway through) which sometimes does appear to advocate this, but then I take the other side and try to show another side of it. So, in a sense I am having an internal debate over the subject.

Thanks!

However, that direct realization may requires wisdom and right conduct to “get it”. One starts from the inner core of the Buddha’s teachings and works outward. The other starts from the outer shell and works inward. The result is the same and is more a matter of what approach appeals to you.

Your comments about ‘something for nothing’ may be a reflection of popular interpretations of Zen, but the sudden enlightenment school has never been divorced from the rest of Buddhism.

Cheers!