Pure Land Buddhism

by

Galen Amstutz

Introduction

Pure Land Buddhism strictly speaking has not been a single tradition but rather a flexible network of texts, terms, ideas, and images most commonly related to conceptions of a future realm of existence alternate to our present world in which the Buddha Amituo (in Japanese, Amida; in Chinese, Omito-fo) would be present to assist the practitioner toward enlightenment. Pure Land traditions formed an important part of Mahayana Buddhism, but non-Asians have historically been less interested in Pure Land than in other types because of its expansive imaginative premise of other cosmic realms (though this was entirely characteristic of premodern Mahayana Buddhism) and because the primary Pure Land focus is not on emptiness philosophy or control of mind via meditation but on the soteriology of some kind of reliance on “another.” Pure Land can be confusing because within its framework several significantly diverse interpretations have operated. A “traditional” version, which dominated continental Asia, was based on a deferral of expectation of serious enlightenment to the future realm of the Buddha because of the idea of an extended timeline in the process of enlightenment. The Shin Buddhist type, which became important in Japan, on the other hand, emphasized the possibility of first-stage (or higher) enlightenment in the present but ultimately only in accordance with “trusting to the Buddha,” that is, a transformative process beyond any volitional control or intentional practices. These ideas were related to neither Christianity nor ontological “dualism” but concerned deferral, imperfectability, or involuntariness within a purely Buddhist context. A third type of usage, associated with Chan or Zen “mind-only” teachings, situated the visionary perfection of the Pure Land in this present world. In Asian social history much of Pure Land offered a way of Buddhist practice that was relatively more open to householder nonmonastics. However, Pure Land–oriented traditions could still be as complex, buddhologically sophisticated, ritually engaged, contemplatively active, and even discipline directed as others. The chief scholarly problems in the study of Pure Land have been an earlier tendency of Western scholars to underemphasize the importance of this side of Buddhism for Asians, as well as a tendency for the powerful Jōdoshinshū school in Japan to dominate the historical perspective.

General Overviews

For early Western students of Buddhism, the question of Pure Land’s legitimacy within the Buddhist tradition long posed a problem (as discussed in Steadman 1987), but such views have been superseded from a variety of angles. As emphasized in Blum 1994, Pure Land was a form of path (mārga) that overlapped with other kinds of Buddhist practice and was rarely sharply distinguishable. Many scholars see Pure Land traditions as to some extent unified by existential themes of piety and trust (Corless 1993), light (Ingram 1974), or taking refuge (Carter 1993). Gómez 2000 focuses on the general theme of hope. Lai 1981 finds a narrative logic in the emergence of the Pure Land mythos from early Buddhism, and Lubac 1955 shows how modern Christian scholarship might interact with Pure Land.

• Blum, Mark L. “Pure Land Buddhism as an Alternative Mārga.” Eastern Buddhist, n.s., 27.1 (Spring 1994): 30–77.

  E-mail Citation »

  In detail, relates Pure Land traditions to the Chinese debates about practice in terms of subitist (sudden) versus gradual enlightenment theories and to Japanese polemics about self power and other power. The argument illustrates how completely Pure Land overlapped with East Asian Buddhism in general, although there was to some extent a distinguishable Pure Land path.

• Carter, John Ross. “‘Relying upon’ or ‘Taking Refuge’ as a Genuinely Human Activity.” Annual Memoirs of the Ōtani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute (Shinshū Sōgō Kenkyūjo kenkyū kiyō) 11 (1993): 17–42.

  E-mail Citation »

  Comparative discussion of the spiritual issue of trust in the transcendent from the standpoint of a scholar of South Asian religions.

• Corless, Roger. “Pure Land Piety.” In Buddhist Spirituality, Vol. 1. Edited by Takeuchi Yoshinori, 242–271. New York: Crossroad, 1993.

  E-mail Citation »

  Describes how, at imaginative, existential, and aesthetic levels, the various Pure Land traditions were linked by their themes of light and trust, motifs that provide bridges to other world religions.

• Gómez, Luis O. “Buddhism as a Religion of Hope: Observations on the ‘Logic’ of a Doctrine and Its Foundational Myth.” Eastern Buddhist, n.s., 32.1 (2000): 1–21.

  E-mail Citation »

  Any analysis of the Pure Land narrative inevitably brings in issues such as grace, assurance of salvation, and “outside” powers, but the handling of these depends on underlying “theological,” doctrinal, and mythic assumptions. Author finds that Pure Land is tied together by ideas of transferable merit (bodhisattva vows), which lead to practices of faith and hope, all thoroughly Buddhist.

• Ingram, Paul O. “The Symbolism of Light and Pure Land Buddhist Soteriology.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1.4 (December 1974): 331–345.

  E-mail Citation »

  Explores the theme of light as a common form of religious imagery.

• Lai, Whalen. “From Sakyamuni to Amitabha: The Logic Behind the Pure Land Devotion.” Ching Feng 24.3 (1981): 156–174.

  E-mail Citation »

  Using Kenneth Burke’s concept of logology, the author argues that the original Buddhist narrative contained within itself a karmic theodicy impelling Buddhist teaching in the Pure Land direction.

• Lubac, Henri de. Aspects du Bouddhisme. Vol. 2, Amida. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955.

  E-mail Citation »

  One-volume treatment of Pure Land from India to Japan by a perceptive Jesuit religious studies scholar from an earlier generation of European scholarship. Dated but summarizes the principal philosophical and historical issues, which persist.

• Steadman, James D. “Pure Land Buddhism and the Buddhist Historical Tradition.” Religious Studies 23.3 (September 1987): 407–421.

  DOI: 10.1017/S0034412500018953E-mail Citation »

  Following an old tradition of doubt about Pure Land’s legitimate continuity with early Buddhism, offers an analysis of the difficulties of historical classification.