The Way of Jodo Shinshu

Koso Wasan 10

'Yet our attachments were extremely difficult to sever,
Birth-and-death were extremely difficult to exhaust.
By practicing Nembutsu Samadhi,
We could destroy our karmic hindrances and attain
    liberation.'

The Pure Land Way

This Wasan continues the reflection on the quotation from the Daichido Ron in the Anraku Shu by Tao-ch'o. I find Shinran Shonin's perspective in relation to Bodhisattva Nagarjuna to be deeply moving and full of pathos. For Shinran is drawing upon the Pure Land tradition of Nagarjuna and touches only lightly - as we have seen - upon his majestic and profound metaphysical theories. Here, we need to pause for a while and take a 'reality check' in the matter of the relationship of the Pure Land tradition to the two seminal thinkers of the Mahayana - Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu. A considerable amount of material held by the Pure Land tradition to have been the work of Nagarjuna, for example, is believed to be of 'doubtful authenticity' by some modern scholars. Just what significance does this concern have for us? How important is it that the works, which Shinran and his predecessors saw as genuine, are now of doubtful autheticity?

By the sixth century of the common era a flourishing tradition had developed in support of the fledgeling Pure Land school for which Tao-ch'o (562 - 645) - the author of the passages which inspired this Wasan - was to become an especially eloquent and important spokesman. This tradition included material attributed to Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu; who were both seen, correctly, as the source of much of the metaphysical theory that underpins Mahayana practice. Yet, interestingly enough very little use was made of the theoretical works of each of these great individuals. T'an-luan certainly wrote of the Pure Land Way in terms which were influenced by his Madhyamika - and also very likely, his Taoist - background. By Shinran's time neither the Madhyamika nor the Yogacara philosophies had made it to centre-stage and become a significant focus in Pure Land theory and practice. In the Kyo Gyo Shin Sho, Shinran uses both Madyamika and Yogacara sources to bolster his teaching and to throw light on his religious experience but he makes almost no use of their respective metaphysical systems.

In modern times many Pure Land scholars have responded to the wide-spread pejorative treatment of the Pure Land Way by attempting an analysis of the tradition and its tenets using the respected theory of the founding fathers of the Mahayana for support. Yet, in my view, such efforts are defeated by the Pure Land tradition itself. This is not to say that such treatment of the Pure Land Dharma is not useful or interesting as speculative work but simply that the Pure Land way has a distinctive focus and function which is undermined by the application of extraneous theory to its process. Nevertheless, the fact is - as we can see from the Dasha Bhumi of Nagarjuna - that until the time of Shan-tao, the Pure Land Way was seen as a hedge against personal failure in practical endevours and not as an integrated self-sustaining system. Although those who turned to the Pure Land Way came from various philosophical schools, it was not the primary focus in their pursuit of the Dharma. The effect of this has been the development of the Pure Land stream as a teaching with roots deep in the original ethos of the Dharma and which floats free of the constraints and rigidities of specific schools of thought.

There is no doubt that all systems of thought within the Buddha Dharma are intended to serve as a vehicle for the final transcendence of samsara and the ultimate freedom and relief of those who take up the way. The Pure Land Way is no less a part of this practice. It seems to me that the truth about the Mahayana is that the great systems of thought, like Madhyamika and Yogacara, are designed to underpin specific practices associated directly with their respective methodologies. In this sense, then, saying the Nembutsu is more or less irrelevant to them and the philosophy of extraneous schools is ultimately only decorative and essentially useless in the task of justifying or supporting Nembutsu practice.

The truth is - or so it seems to me, at any rate - that the Pure Land Way is a Buddha Vehicle which cuts to the chase when it comes to the Dharma and lands the follower firmly at the feet of the basic and unmitigated principles of the Dharma which were first expounded by Shakyamuni himself - conditioned things have no self (Sk. anatman), all conditioned things are subject change (Sk. anitya), all existence is painful (Sk. dhukha) and there is no bliss except Nirvana. The Pure Land Way points directly and unapologetically directly at Nirvana, the Unconditioned. In my view it is deeper and more compelling than any subsequent theory. As such, it has a distinctive perspective on the two great Mahayana philosophers we are currently discussing. Far from being the providers of metaphysical theory, they are exemplars of the process whereby we are finally freed from attachments and submit to the naked and unadorned call of the Dharma. This makes the Pure Land Way a radical and audacious path, in which Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu have special and unique qualities. Therefore, to those who are outside the tradition, it is understandable that the Pure Land writings of both of these authors would naturally appear dubious and exotic - even threatening.

Going back to the Wasan that we are considering now, we discover that the Bodhisattvas referred to in the Chido Ron, which inspired this verse, were unable to progress because of their attachments. And, what attachments were they? There is no doubt that, from the very beginning, the most insidious attachments are those of the mind (Sk. drsti) opinions, views and theories. Here, if we look back to the material which inspired these last three Wasan on Nagarjuna, we discover the it is attachments to views about prajna itself which inhibited the Bodhisattvas' progress.

The Pure Land Way belongs firmly within the Mahayana stream because it is the way that is accessible to all beings, without exception, and not because it is dependent on extraneous metaphysical theories. I suspect that when it attracts opprobrium, it does so because, deep down its critics sense that its job is to peel our fingers away from our prejudices and views; the attachments which may potentially inhibit our progress in the Dharma for eternity.

For Shinran, Nagarjuna is the consummate convert: the first historical figure to become free from views and abandon his heart to the the Primal Vow; to namu-amida-butsu. How wonderful that, since his time, countless millions of followers of the Dharma have found the same release and heard the call of the Vow.

April 10, 2003.

A Tibetan Thanka of Bodhisattva Nagarjuna - Author unknown.