Western Buddhism, Buddhism Itself, and Pureland

QUESTION: The more I reflect upon it the more I am convinced that Pure Land Buddhism is closer to Christianity than to Buddhism itself. This is shown not only by the emphasis on faith above all else, but also on the idea about how foolish we are. The best testimony that I can think of right now on this regard is Dostoievski's The Idiot, consciously Christian all throughout. But so many other Western artists and writers come back to the same feeling: that of being nothing but a speck of dust compared to the grandiosity of the universe or God. In fact, if we look at things closely it is one of the very basic themes of Western philosophy and arts. I have studied Buddhism quite a bit especially in the last couple of years, and I won't say, of course, that this aspect of "fear and trembling", as Kierkegaard would put it, is absent in Buddhism as a whole, but it is definitely not as present as in the Christian or other monotheistic(-semitic) traditions. You might not agree with me at this point, but I think that Buddhism, at least the way it was taught originally by the Buddha, leans a great deal more towards knowledge than to faith or surrender. This is not to say that Pure Land Buddhism is not Buddhism – it is Buddhism in its own right, and sprouted out of certain historic-cultural conditions that made it the
way it is. Just as Tibetan Buddhism resembles traditions that were already established in the area or nearby (art-wise and philosophically), so happens with all the rest. Tibetan Buddhism is of course Buddhism, but it is in so many ways so close to Maniqueism, Christian Gnosticism and other non-Buddhist sources that one wonders about labels altogether. It is interesting to me, in this respect, that you use the Buddha as your main reference point all throughout your book, since the tone and the underlying attitude is not, in my view, that Buddhist, but, as I said before, generally Christian.


DHARMAVIDYA: Pureland is Buddhism itself. It is true that Pureland is somewhat different from much of the Buddhism that is presented in the West, but there are reasons for Western buddhism being generally preented the way it is - a way that is rather different from how it is presented in much of Asia. But if we go back to fundamentals for a moment, in most lists of qualities valued by the Buddha, faith comes first. Everything else follows. The term bonbu in Japanese that is translated into English as "foolish being" means "being of klesha nature" and klesha is a term used all the time by Shakyamuni. You are right that Shakyamuni puts great emphasis on "knowledge" of a certain sort, but his point is that the vast majority of people (i.e. us) lack that knowledge - thus we are foolish beings. What can be said is that Western Buddhists do not tend to emphasise this as much as Shakyamuni did and do not generally give faith or devotion the prominence that they have in Asian Buddhism. So one could say that Pureland is closer to "Buddhism itself" than it is to Western Buddhism (WB) and is this not because Western Buddhists are somewhat allergic to anything that reminds them of Christianity so that WB is only a selection out of Buddhism itself, a selection that excludes the elements that are Christian-like, hence Buddhism itself is bound to seem more like Christianity than WB is? To restate this:
WB=(Buddhism itself) minus (faith, devotion, klesha-nature, anything else that looks Christian...),
hence Buddhism itself is closer to Christianity (and most other religions) than WB is. It would not be surprising if there is a fair bit of common ground between major religions. Having said that, klesha nature and Purelnd teaching have nothing much to do with "fear and trembling". The Judaic God may have been something to fear but there is no equivalent in Buddhism, certainly not in Pureland. Similarly, Pureland is not about surrender in the sense understood by the monotheisms. It is about refuge which is certainly the bedrock basis of "Buddhism itself". I will not take up your points about Tibetan Buddhism, - I am sure that most Tibetan Buddhists I know would take issue with you -but it is not my brief. I hope this explains things a bit. Pureland is Buddhism itself, that is, it is faith in ultimate refuge as taught by Shakyamuni and all other Buddhas. Pureland has its own styles of expressing that faith - nembutsu and so on - but style is not the ssential. Pureland derives from the very earliest days of Buddhism, from the teachings of Shakyamuni himself and there is actually no legitimate school of Buddhism that does not teach the deluded nature of the vast mass of humanity, no school that teaches fear (with or without trembling), no school that does not teach faith. They may not emphasise these features in the West, but it is so.