Pure Land Buddhism and Yogacara Thought

Posted: August 20, 2009 | Author: Doug | Filed under: Buddhism, Hosso, Jodo Shinshu, Jodo Shu | Leave a comment »

I’ve wanted to share this one for a while, but hadn’t found the time to type it up. A while back, after I lost my temper one afternoon, I suddenly remembered something that Rev Tagawa said in the book Living Yogacara: An introduction to Conscious-only Buddhism:

The Buddha warned us how ill-will can instantly incinerate the forest of merit built with great effort… (pg. 42)

So, I went back and found this quotation again in the book, but also some other excellent teachings I had forgotten before. This is the part I wanted to share.

On the previous page, Rev. Tagawa talks about how we can’t wash away what we’ve done, even if by mutual consent:

In the thinking consciousness, the experiences of our daily lives are quickly forgotten. We may read a novel with great passion, but undoubtedly after the passage of several years, it will be difficult to recall portions of the plot. However, even if completely forgotten on the side of the thinking consciousness, it is properly stored in the subconscious region.

We can say that in having this kind of store consciousness that preserves our entire past, our present selves exist atop that same storehouse, which serves as our foundation. In this sense, our past actions and experiences cannot be so easily washed away. But within the range of our memory we may tend to try to wash away the recollection of inconvenient events, to act as if they never existed. (pg 41)

Thus Rev. Tagawa summarizes:

Our present existence is constituted by the things we have done in the past, no matter how ugly they may be. The problem is what, exactly, we are perfuming into our ālaya-vijñāna [store consciousness].

This is where Buddhist practice comes in:

In the world of Buddhism, cultivation of a particular aspect of our spirit and body is often carried out in a traditional format within a set period of time, and we call this “practice”. But when we exert ourselves in the effort of valuing our daily life as it is, trying not to be sloppy in the three karmic activities of speech, body and thought, this is not simply called “practice”; rather it is labeled with the Buddhist technical term applied practice (Skt. pragoya). That means that, when, on the other hand, practice is not “applied,” we are doubtlessly carrying out our daily life in a sloppy way.

Applied practice refers to this kind of maintenance of continual mindfulness. For instance, in the Avalokiteśvara Sūtra [Ch. 25 of the Lotus Sutra], the term constant mindfulness appears often, adivising one to be continuously mindful of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara. As a result, the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara is gradually impressed strongly into the mind’s innermost depths, and the mindfulness of Avalokiteśvara is accumulated in the ālaya-vijñāna. We develop a focused spiritual power, which becomes a support and foundation for future practices. (pg. 42)

This last section, coupled with what’s said earlier, really had a strong impression on me. In my studies of Jodo Shu Buddhism, I recall that Honen strongly advocated exclusive practice of the nembutsu, reciting Amitabha Buddha’s name, which seemed strange to me. Afterall, the textbook explanation of Buddhism in the West is meditation, Four Noble Truths, and so on.¹ So why would Honen teach something like this?

As the Jodo Shu Research Institute shows in this article, Honen believed that exclusive practice was important in the early stages of a Pure Land Buddhist. As one develops the Three Minds and Four Modes of Practice, they cross a threshold (安心, anjin, “peaceful mind”) where their confidence in the Pure Land teachings and Buddhism becomes more firm, and that with the nembutsu as a bedrock, they expand into other practices as they see fit.

One of his disciples, Shinran, who started the Jodo Shinshu Buddhist sect, relied more on faith than overt practice, but the end-result is the same. Through reflection on the Buddha, and one’s own nature, they would sooner or later cross a threshold where they become fully aware of Amitabha Buddha’s light, and fully entrust themselves to it. He called it shinjin (信心, “entrusting mind”). As he states in the Tannisho:

XVI: Once true entrusting is settled, we realize that our birth is due to the working of Amida and not to our calculations. Even though we may do evil, even more should we think about the power of the Vow. Then, tenderness and forbearance will appear by virtue of “made to become so by itself.”

Although it’s not clear how much Honen and Shinran were influenced by Hosso/Yogacara thought, the Hosso was a dominant school in their day, and in established biographies, a young Honen frequently discussed matters of doctrine with eminent Hosso scholars. Likewise, Shinran was a monk for 20 years, and had to encounter its teachings more than once.

In any case, I believe there’s a kind of convergence of thought between what Rev. Tagawa says above, and what Honen and Shinran both believed. All three men may differ on details, but the idea is the same: we live under a heavy burden from our past deeds, and these deeds color our thoughts and deeds, even if we pretend they don’t happen. As stated in a previous post mentioned above, impressions from our actions generated new seed-impressions deep in our subconscious, which lead to actions which “perfume” the seeds, leading to yet more action and so forth.

Under this strain, it is no wonder that Honen and Shinran felt that most people would not be able to overcome this cycle, and encouraged people to take refuge in Amitabha Buddha. But I believe they also knew that Amitabha’s magnetism, the power of his compassionate vow, would in turn make a deep impression on the mind, and lead us in the right path. This is not due to our own efforts, but due to Amitabha’s nature.

In terms of doctrine, Honen’s approach with his emphasis on repeated recitation of the nembutsu focused on manifest action (nembutsu) in Yogacara-speak, while Shinran, with his emphasis on faith, focused on perfuming by Amitabha on the mind. But as the previous Hosso/Yogacara post shows, it’s an endless cycle. It’s just a question of where to start in the cycle for someone who begins following Pure Land teachings.

My first impression of Pure Land Buddhism ever was when I visited the temple of Chion-in in Kyoto Japan (a Jodo Shu temple) in 2005.² There, I watched a lone monk chant something before a statue of Amitabha Buddha, and although I didn’t understand very much, it left an impression on my mind that grew later when I got back to the US, and researched it more. From there, I became a follower, and started chanting the nembutsu too.

So, for me, the experiences of my life around Chion-in, the monk who was chanting that day, and the image of Amida Buddha are personal proof of the convergence of Yogacara/Hosso teachings and how they apply to Pure Land Buddhism.

Namu Amida Butsu

P.S. Posting way off-schedule, but meh. I’ve been meaning to write this one for a while.

¹ Most Western Buddhists are unaware that there is a strongly “Theravada” bias in what we Westerners call basic Buddhism. I believe this is more for historical reasons (British territories included mostly Theravada-influenced countries, not Mahayana ones), than anything sinister. Fact is, the Theravada teachings have been better translated and disseminated. However, I believe it’s important to flesh out what I call “basic Mahayana”, which includes all of the above, but with a shift in emphasis, and different vocabulary. Again, no big schism here, or any conflicts, it’s just that the two branches evolved differently due to conditions and geography.

² The snowy pictures on that Wikipedia are mine, by the way. Can’t believe it’s been almost 5 years now.

---