What is the significance of the pure land

Thus, the existence of innumerable buddhas implied that there are myriads of purified buddha-fields over which they preside, for it may be expected that, through aeons of history in numberless worlds, countless beings will have attained supreme awakening by following the bodhisattva path, and these beings all work for the liberation of others in their own spheres of realization.

In the Mahayana cosmology, there are great chiliocosms countless as the sands of the Ganges throughout the ten quarters, and most are buddha-fields, or parts of buddha-fields, in which a buddha teaches dharma for the benefit of its inhabitants. Thus, the entire cosmos is a panoply of countless buddha-fields in which the drama of the salvation of all beings is carried out, with buddhas and bodhisattvas radiating the light of wisdom-compassion for all living things.

A third aspect of notable relevance to the Pure Land tradition is the transcendence of the dichotomy of monastic and lay in Mahayana thought. Monastic life had developed as the practical norm for Buddhist life in the early tradition, for the end was personal emancipation from samsaric existence. Practice was construed as observance of the monastic code and meditative practices, and withdrawal from ordinary lay life was itself seen as a crucial step in breaking the bonds of samsaric existence.

Mahayanists, however, sought to realize a fully nondichotomous wisdom; hence, while in actual practice they continued to recognize the efficacy of monastic life as a means to the goal, renunciation of lay life was not in itself an intrinsic or requisite aspect of emancipation.

Other paramitas also emphasize the resolution to fulfill the bodhisattva vows for the enlightenment of all beings. Moreover, precepts or morality was not necessarily construed as the rigid monastic rule governing sequestered life apart from normal society, but as a more general code of proper action observable in varying degrees in lay life also.

This insight rooted in Mahayana thought from its beginnings underlies the evolution of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan in particular, which during the period of its most dynamic development evinces precisely the shift of the center of praxis from assumptions of monastic efficacy to an emphasis on everyday life as the domain of in which genuine practice is manifested.

He therefore searched throughout Buddhist tradition for an accessible path, and at length found the exposition of the nembutsu. Nembutsu practices in early Buddhist tradition centered on mindfulness exercises conducted in veneration of Sakyamuni Buddha, and included elements of bodily worship and the reverent repetition of the name of the Buddha.

Later, it developed into a core practice of monastics involving ritual prostrations with the body, contemplation on the features of enlightened beings and vocal recitation of their names, conducted with long lists of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. No intellectual command of Buddhist teachings, accumulation of merit, moral rectitude, or any act of practice other than the vocal nembutsu is necessary. There was no specified manner of utterance, no necessity for any accompanying ritual or meditative endeavor, and no stipulation of the length of the period of practice or number of repetitions.

Without an adequate demonstration that vocal nembutsu held such power, Pure Land praxis would remain an supplementary discipline within the existing schools of Buddhist tradition, one supportive practice to be performed in combination with a range of other methods.

In other words, Amida, through his vow and the salvific virtue of his own already completed performance of endless aeons of bodhisattva practices, established the saying of the Name as the medium by which his own compassionate working actively reaches each being.

Thus, the nembutsu has been prepared for beings as effective practice—already fulfilled by Amida as the act resulting in birth in the Pure Land.

This salvific activity is particularly appropriate in the present age, when the accomplishment of praxis as ordinarily understood in Buddhist tradition has receded beyond the reach of beings. Nevertheless, the major formulation of his religious thought followed customary models, dictated by his formidable role in Buddhist history.

The former manifests self-power, the latter Other Power. In other words, concretely, how should persons of the nembutsu carry on their lives?

This view, however, sometimes shaded into ethical and eschatological concerns. If, because it is taught [in the Larger Sutra ] that birth is attained with but one or ten utterances, you say the nembutsu heedlessly, then faith is hindering practice. As your faith, accept that birth is attained with a single utterance; as your practice, endeavor in the nembutsu throughout life. The master, in short, failed to achieve a clear doctrinal resolution of this issue of religious life.

Above all, the emergence of such issues within the context of a thoroughgoing application of the general Mahayana critique of self-attachment in religious praxis gave rise to the most innovative philosophical reflection in the Japanese Pure Land tradition. Let us turn here to several basic issues in Pure Land Buddhist thought that 1 emerged from problems of practical engagement but were given characteristic treatment specifically in Japan, and 2 may be considered to have received philosophical attention in the sense that, regarding them, Japanese Pure Land Buddhists were forced, by intra-sectarian debate, to seek a degree of intellectual self-understanding distinct both from scholastic Buddhist discourse and from the kind of realization achieved through religious engagement.

In addition, for convenience, I will discuss these issues under the headings of metaphysics, anthropology, hermeneutics, and ethics. In fact, the four headings are best understood as slightly differing perspectives on essentially the same central problem: the apprehension of what is true and real from within a stance of radical conditionedness.

What enables such apprehension? What is its significance for human existence? How does it come about? And what implications does it hold for the conduct of life? This thinking characterized by the discriminative perception of the world of beings rooted in the nondiscriminative apprehension of reality may be seen in relation to the question of the real existence of beings born in the Pure Land in the following passage from the sixth century Chinese Pure Land thinker Tanluan — :.

We see that from very early in the East Asian tradition, as well known in Japan, Pure Land thinkers applied the Mahayana logic of the nonduality and interpenetration of discriminative and nondiscriminative realms to Pure Land concepts. Regarding the nature of Amida Buddha, perhaps the most natural approach for the modern mind is to focus on the relationship between Amida and Sakyamuni.

It is common to say, therefore, that Sakyamuni belongs to the realm of historical fact and actual existence, while Amida is fictive.

This view is supported by the modern understanding of the relationship between the two buddhas. Amida Buddha has never appeared directly as a historical personage, and there are no teachings or words that can be attributed to him. Thus, it is common to view the story of Amida as a narrative fashioned by Sakyamuni or a later figure to express the content of his own religious insight.

In this view, Amida is a fiction whose origins lie in the experience of Sakyamuni. In fact, there is basic continuity in the perspective on Amida among the Mahayana schools, and it stands diametrically opposed to modernist assumptions. For Mahayana Buddhists, reality resides not fundamentally with the historical existence of Sakyamuni as such, but rather with that for which he is recognized as buddha, or that which is the motive-force for his appearance in the world, his attainment of buddhahood, and his teaching of dharma.

Reality assumes form in order to emerge into the consciousness of sentient beings and thereby guide beings beyond the attachments and compulsions of their discriminative, reifying, conceptual grasp of their own existence and the things of the world around them. He states:. Concerning the central purport [of the Larger Sutra ]: Sakyamuni discarded the supreme Pure Land and appeared in this defiled world; this was to expound the teaching of the Pure land and, by encouraging sentient beings, to bring them to birth in the Pure Land.

Amida Tathagata discarded this defiled world and emerged in the Pure Land; this was to guide sentient beings of this defiled world and bring them to birth in the Pure Land.

This is none other than the fundamental intent with which all buddhas go out to the Pure Land and emerge in the defiled world. Without Sakyamuni, Amida would remain unknown to beings in this world and his work of leading all to his buddha-field would go unapprehended; without Amida, Sakyamuni would have no effective means of liberating beings and his teaching mission would be futile.

In place of a linear chronology, we have a motif of movement between the timeless and mundane time, by which the temporality of karmic causation and discriminative thinking is broken. For Shinran, it is the motive-force of wisdom-compassion that underlies the historical existence of Sakyamuni—that in fact made him buddha—and this wisdom-compassion is itself the life of Amida Buddha. Shinran focuses on the pattern in the sutras by which, prior to expounding dharma, the Buddha enters a profound samadhi and delves to the nondiscriminative wisdom that transcends words and concepts.

On emerging from the samadhi, he reemerges into the realm of words and responds to questions from his disciples. While his words are those of ordinary human discourse, they give expression to the samadhi he attained. Sakyamuni proceeds to deliver the teaching of Amida Buddha.

From the perspective of this sutra, were it not for Amida, whose Buddhahood lies at the heart of the samadhi of great tranquility, Sakyamuni himself would not be Buddha. At the same time, were it not for Sakyamuni, the teaching of Amida would not be disclosed to the world. Thus, the relationship between Amida and Sakyamuni is not that between two distinct figures, or between the religious symbol taught and the teacher. It may be said that while meditative traditions in Buddhism tend to emphasize the elimination of delusional thinking and the apprehension of formless reality free of the imposition of egocentric discrimination, the Pure Land tradition is attentive to the compassionate working of reality to awaken beings incapable of eradicating conceptual thought.

It does so by manifesting itself in forms and approaching beings. Since beings cannot attain such wisdom, reality as such cannot be grasped. Because the Pure Land path is not based on such praxis, the use of such terms is unnecessary. There are two aspects. One is to believe deeply and decidedly that you are a foolish being of karmic evil caught in birth-and-death, ever sinking and ever wandering in transmigration from innumerable kalpas in the past, with never a condition that would lead to emancipation.

Second [of the three minds] is deep mind, which is true and real shinjin. One truly knows oneself to be a foolish being full of blind passions, with scant roots of good, transmigrating in the three realms and unable to emerge from this burning house.

Three points may be noted here. First, the self-awareness of the practitioner indicated by Shan-tao is that of a human being wholly incapable of fulfilling Buddhist practices.

In other words, the self-reflection implied in deep mind is, in its opposite aspect, at the same time deep trust in the salvific power of Amida. The third point is that while human being and Buddha stand thus as thoroughgoing opposites—the being filled with afflicting passions and lacking any goodness that might lead toward enlightenment, on the one hand, and the Buddha freely exerting the power of wisdom-compassion, on the other—deep mind arises as a unitary awareness out of the interaction of being and Buddha.

Self-reflection and trust arise simultaneously. Without the approach of Amida, not only trust, but also genuine self-awareness is unattainable. Although Buddhism is vast, in essence it is composed of no more than the three learnings [of precepts, meditation, and wisdom. In meditation, I have not attained even one. In wisdom, I have not attained the right wisdom of cutting off discriminative thinking and realizing the fruit….

Shinran, for example, distinguishes various types of bodhi-mind and identifies that of the true Pure Land path with his conception of shinjin. If they have the ability to give rise to trust, can they not perform other practices also?

That which is real suchness, thusness, nondual reality, buddha-nature, etc. The question of the nature of the relation leads to the problem of hermeneutics. Issues of hermeneutics are central to the Japanese Pure Land tradition because of the discontinuity it asserts between the ordinary awareness of beings and the enlightened wisdom-compassion of the Buddha, which is the source and ultimate content of the teaching. The narrative settings of the Pure Land teachings in the sutras were regarded as particularly significant in this regard.

From her cell, Vaidehi beseeches the Buddha to teach her a way to be born in a world free of such treachery and turmoil.

Shinran emphasizes the distance between this world and the realm of enlightenment by asserting that at the point in history when conditions were ripe for teaching and reception of the Pure Land path, the entire drama of regicide and betrayal was played out by incarnated bodhisattvas precisely to allow for the introduction of the Pure Land teaching.

It is, therefore, the condition of self-reflection and repentance that allows for the reception of the Pure Land teaching. In the latter view, the various contemplative exercises and the disciplines and study taught by the sutra are meant to reveal the wisdom-compassion of the vow, which grasps all beings without discrimination, whatever their capacity. In other words, the sutra teachings are not to be taken literally, but as means to awaken beings so that they entrust themselves to the vow.

In Shinran, the activity of the vow is more direct, for he asserts that shinjin in beings is itself the mind of Amida and that Amida gives his mind to beings.

This oneness manifests itself as the nembutsu. Precisely how it was given remained an issue. The effects of the oneness are manifested not only in the occurrence of birth in the Pure Land at death, but also in various ways in present life.

Chanting the name of Amitabha Buddha does not do anything at all to help the person to the Pure Land. Chanting is nothing more than an expression of gratitude to Amitabha Buddha and an expression of the chanter's faith. But it's not possible to do away with the chanting: Shinran wrote "the True Faith is necessarily accompanied by the utterance of the Name". Shin Buddhists say that faith in Amitabha Buddha is not something that the believer should take the credit for since it's not something that the believer does for themselves.

Their faith is a gift from Amitabha Buddha. And in keeping with this style of humility, Shin Buddhists don't accept the idea that beings can earn merit for themselves by their own acts; neither good deeds, nor performing rituals help. This has huge moral implications in that it implies and Shinran quite explicitly said that a sinner with faith will be made welcome in the Pure Land - even more welcome than a good man who has faith and pride.

The sect's teachings brought it huge popularity in Japan, since here was a form of Buddhism that didn't require a person to be clever, or a monk, and that was open to the outcasts of society. It remains a popular group in Buddhism - and the reasons that made it popular years ago are exactly the same ones that make it popular today. On the surface Pure Land Buddhism seems to have moved a very long way from the basic Buddhist ideas, and it's important to see how it might actually fit in.

The way to do this is to tackle each issue and see what's really going on. On the surface, yes. But perhaps chanting Amitabha Buddha's name is not praying to an external deity, but really a way of calling out one's own essential Buddha nature.

However some of Shinran's writings do speak of Amitabha Buddha in language that a westerner would regard as describing God. But perhaps the Pure Land is really a poetic metaphor for a higher state of consciousness. Chanting the name can then be seen as a meditative practice that enables the follower to alter their state of mind.

This argument is quite hard to sustain in the face of the importance given to chanting the name in faith at the moment of death - when some supernatural event is clearly expected by most followers. And the chanting is not regarded solely as a meditative practice by most followers. However gaps between populist and sophisticated understanding of religious concepts are common in all faiths.

But in fact this is just a further move in the direction that Mahayana Buddhism has already taken to allow assistance in the journey to liberation. And the being still has much work to do when they arrive in the Pure Land. Shinran however taught that arriving in the Pure Land was actually the final liberation - the Pure Land was nirvana.

Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. What many may not know is that this interpretation differs vastly from its practice in East Asia. This form of practice — central to Pure Land Buddhism — arose from Mahayana Buddhism, a branch of Buddhism that emerged in the first to sixth centuries A.

One of the innovative teachings of Mahayana Buddhism was that the cosmos is inhabited by millions of buddhas, not just the historical founder of the religion. Since all these buddhas had to reside somewhere, and their environments had to be as pure as they were, it followed that there are many buddha-lands. Prior to the development of Pure Land Buddhism, the only way to enlightenment lay through an arduous path of study and practice that was out of reach for most people. In China, the Pure Land teaching made the prospect of liberation from suffering and the attainment of buddhahood feasible for ordinary people.

Buddhists believe that all living beings are stuck in an endless loop of birth and rebirth and the good or bad fortune they experience results from karma. Karma is a moral force created by the deeds one does: Virtuous deeds give one better fortune, while evil or even just ignorant deeds bring misfortune.

As a buddha is believed to have completely purified his karma, his body and mind are free of all defects and the land he inhabits is perfect.