Myth and History in Shin Buddhist Thought -...

23
1 Myth and History in Shin Buddhist Thought David Matsumoto Institute of Buddhist Studies February 2017 I. Introduction Myth and history represent central categories of thought, faith and life whether in seamless continuity or polar tension in many religious traditions throughout the world. Yet, I find it surprisingly challenging as a Shin Buddhist to address the issue in a satisfying way. For reasons that I will suggest, a consideration of the categories of myth and history represents a challenging scheme by which to address important questions of Shin Buddhist thought and faith. II. Myth and History: general considerations What is myth? As mythos, a myth is a narrative about significant events in human lives the creation and end of the cosmos, cultural heroes or questions of life and death. For some, myth offers a sacred, spiritual history and a foundation for present place, act and thought. It has been said that myths are not hard to detect; we know a myth when we hear one. However, when it comes to the study of myth, we are faced with the fact that it is very difficult to determine just what myth is. Myth is everything and nothing at the same time. It is the true story or a false one, revelation or deception, sacred or vulgar, real or fictional, symbol or tool, archetype or stereotype. It is either strongly structured and logical or emotional and pre-logical, traditional and primitive or part of contemporary ideology. Myth is about the gods, but often also the ancestors and sometimes certain men. … It is charter, recurring theme, character type, received idea, half-truth, tale or just a plain lie. (Strenski, 1987: 1) There are many different theories, approaches, definitions and perspectives. A quick look at the perspectives of just four theorists from the 20th Century will demonstrate the broad range of ideas and concerns along which myth can be taken up. For instance,

Transcript of Myth and History in Shin Buddhist Thought -...

1

Myth and History in Shin Buddhist Thought

David Matsumoto

Institute of Buddhist Studies

February 2017

I. Introduction

Myth and history represent central categories of thought, faith and life whether in seamless

continuity or polar tension in many religious traditions throughout the world. Yet, I find it

surprisingly challenging as a Shin Buddhist to address the issue in a satisfying way. For reasons

that I will suggest, a consideration of the categories of myth and history represents a challenging

scheme by which to address important questions of Shin Buddhist thought and faith.

II. Myth and History: general considerations

What is myth?

As mythos, a myth is a narrative about significant events in human lives – the creation and

end of the cosmos, cultural heroes or questions of life and death. For some, myth offers a sacred,

spiritual history and a foundation for present place, act and thought. It has been said that myths

are not hard to detect; we know a myth when we hear one. However, when it comes to the study

of myth, we are faced with the fact that it is very difficult to determine just what myth is.

Myth is everything and nothing at the same time. It is the true story or a false one, revelation

or deception, sacred or vulgar, real or fictional, symbol or tool, archetype or stereotype. It is

either strongly structured and logical or emotional and pre-logical, traditional and primitive or

part of contemporary ideology. Myth is about the gods, but often also the ancestors and

sometimes certain men. … It is charter, recurring theme, character type, received idea,

half-truth, tale or just a plain lie. (Strenski, 1987: 1)

There are many different theories, approaches, definitions and perspectives. A quick look at

the perspectives of just four theorists from the 20th Century will demonstrate the broad range of

ideas and concerns along which myth can be taken up. For instance,

2

Ernst Cassirer apprehends myth as a reflection on the reality of the subject; thus, the study

of myth will examine the mental processes that create myth, instead of presupposed, real objects

of myth. Myths are spiritual forms that contain within themselves the criteria for their truth and

meaning. They are particular modes of mythic thinking and expression that can transcend

experience and meet the needs of the age in which people live. Cassirer sought to grasp the

single, coherent essence in myth, theorizing that myths are stories that have essentially to do with

emotional unity, held together by the monistic principle of emotional unity.

Bronislaw Malinowsky took a functional approach to myth. Myth is a “charter,” warrant

and even a practical rule that provide guidance in action. It is a living reality in a primitive

culture. Myth is not symbolic, but a direct expression of its subject; it is not an explanation but a

narrative resurrection of a primeval reality. Myth fulfills an indispensable function in primitive

culture: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief; it safeguards and enforces morality; it

vouches for the efficiency of ritual; and it contains practical rules for the guidance of man.

Claude Lévi-Strauss offered a structural analysis of myth. A myth is a strongly structured,

important story. Myths contain concealed messages, containing significant ideas, which have to

be “decoded” through a detailed and comprehensive structural analysis. That method cannot be

demonstrated by reference to one or a few examples; it must be a global, full length operation.

Mircea Eliade proposed that all myths are in essence origin narratives. They are

cosmogonic, pertaining to creation of the cosmos. Myths engage in a “mythic return” - they

return to time before time, before the gods or ancestors created the world to sacred time in order

to narrate sacred events. The aim of a religious person is to go beyond the natural/profane world

of space and time and enter into the sacred space of eternal time. Myths act as sacraments of the

imagination. (Strenski, 1987)

3

This brief glimpse of the thoughts of four theorists shows us that scholarly approaches to

myths lie across a broad spectrum of thought and concern. On one hand, some approaches to

myth equate it with some essential, universal religious truth, and tendency, which seems to have

a strongly perennialist flavor. On the other hand, some scholars emphasize the processes,

structures of power, and implications of social or political formation of myth. Focus is placed not

so much on the “myth” but on the activity of “mythmaking.” (McCutcheon, 2000: 199)

Moreover, the word in Japanese, “shinwa” or tales of the kami, which are offered within a

context of origin, social and political foundations, may function well with some Western theories

of myth, but perhaps less so when the topic turns to narratives in the Shin Buddhist world.

What is the significance of history?

History, as a category of thought, is also problematic for Buddhists, but for different reasons.

Attention must first be given the question of what history could mean in Buddhism. While

history in many of the world’s religions is generally thought to consist of chronological or linear

time, Arnold Toynbee famously declared that, in Buddhism history itself is considered to be

cyclical, not chronological. To a large extent Jan Nattier agrees, stating that Buddhism is not a

“historical religion.” (Nattier, 1991: 3) Even the Buddha’s enlightenment – the central event in

Buddhist mythology – is not viewed as a decisive historical event. The Buddha’s awakening did

not usher a new revelation into the world for the first time; rather, he discovered a timeless truth

about the nature of reality, and that awakening, he taught, had happened before and would

happen again.

Having no creator-god theory, Buddhism posits karma (action or cause and effect) as that

universal mechanism that keeps the phenomenal world operating in cycles of birth, death and

rebirth, without beginning or end. (Lamb, 1994: 8)

4

At the same time, Buddhists and Hindhus are said to share an Indian sense of the

incomprehensible vastness, in distance and time of the cosmos. Nattier points out, for instance,

that the notion of endlessly recurring sequences of historical time, lasting for eons of kalpas

underlie the early Buddhist sutras that issued prophecy of the inevitable decline and death of the

Dharma. (Nattier, 1994)

Nishitani Keiji, however, challenges Toynbee’s interpretation of time in Buddhism.

(Nishitani, 1982: 168-217) All religions that can be characterized as mythos share a view that

time is recurrent and ahistorical. One can point to cycles in nature or in the events of human life.

In that sense, a cyclical view of time and history might be seen as mythical. But the Buddhist

conception of time is not purely ahistorical, for all religious traditions are located in history.

Instead, says Nishitani, time in Buddhism might be described as circular, because all of its time

systems are simultaneous, as well as rectilinear, since it is a continuum of individual “nows”

within such simultaneity. And there must be an infinite “openness” at the bottom of time. Each

“now” is new; there is no repetition for each “now” passes away.

History is impermanent. Time comes out of the distant past and goes further into a future

that ceaselessly opens up. The beginning and end of time lie directly beneath the present, its

home ground, and from that home-ground comes an infinite openness beyond all time. That

infinite openness has implications for history; it is both a field of unlimited, creative possibility

and an infinite burden of unceasing newness.

“Karma” is an awareness of our existence in which being and time are infinite burdens for

us, while being the essence of time itself. The standpoint of karma is the fundamental form of

human life in the ordinary world of history. All of our work belongs to this world of history. Our

existence, our behavior, and our becoming all come about within a world-nexus that is unlimited

5

not only with regard to time but also with regard to space. In the standpoint of karma as well the

nexus of being-doing-becoming comes about within time without beginning or end, while

opening up the infinite openness of nihility directly beneath the present. The standpoint of karma,

however, has to be abandoned to reach the standpoint of emptiness, a disengagement that signals

a conversion from the standpoint of nihility to the standpoint of sunyata. (Nishitani, 1982:

222-255)

III. Myth and History in Shin Buddhist Thought

As we have seen, then, the categories of myth and history are not terribly simple to grasp or

employ in the Buddhist context. With that in mind, however, I would like to share some

significant narratives at work within the Pure Land scriptures and Shin Buddhist thought. I

mention them, unsure of whether it would be better to characterize them as myths, metaphors or

symbols. Some are clearly cosmogonic. Some are narratives that seek to reveal the truth of Shin

apprehensions. Others address spiritual concerns about one’s place in the world. Although I will

briefly mention seven such narratives now, I would like to pay closer attention to the first two of

them in my talk today.

The first narrative is the most well-known in Pure Land Buddhism – the story of the career

of the Bodhisattva Dharmākara. Mythic in scope, origin and implication it likely captured the

spiritual imaginations of Pure Land followers throughout the centuries.

The Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life presents the narrative, which begins with a buddha

named Lokeśvararāja in whose presence was a king. Listening to the buddha’s preaching of the

Dharma, the king immediately gave rise to the mind aspiring for enlightenment. He abandoned

his kingdom, relinquished his throne, and became a monk named Dharmākara. He came into the

presence of the Lokeśvararāja, touched the Buddha’s feet with his forehead, circumambulated

6

clockwise three times, dropped to his knees, pressed his palms together, and praised the Buddha

in verse.

Dharmākara then asked the Buddha to relate the teachings of the buddha lands, so that he

might immediately attain perfect enlightenment in this world and remove the source of sufferings

of birth-and-death. Lokeśvararāja then explained the two hundred and ten kotis of buddha lands

for the bhiksu’s sake, and manifested all the lands and allowed him to see them.

Having heard what the Buddha taught and having seen all the lands with pure adornments,

the bhiksu then made unsurpassed and unparalleled vows. Meditating for five kalpas, he

comprehended the pure practices by which the innumerable, exquisite buddha lands were

established.

The Buddha then commanded the bhiksu to proclaim his vows before the entire assembly of

bodhisattvas in the assembly. Dharmākara then expounded this forty-eight vows in detail. Each

of the vows was presented in the form of a double-negative, in order to emphasis the resoluteness

of his bodhi mind: “If, when I attain buddhahood, …… , may I not realize perfect enlightenment.”

Among the forty-eight vows were those related to Buddha, those related to the Buddha-land, and

those concerning beings in Buddha-land.

The bhiksu, having expounded these vows, then uttered verses in confirmation of them.

After he finished, the whole earth immediately trembled in the six ways and the heavenly beings

rained exquisite flowers which scattered on the earth. Spontaneously, music arose in the sky.

Having made these vows, Dharmākara single-heartedly devoted himself to adorning this

exquisite land. He cultivated the immeasurable virtues of bodhisattva practices during the

inconceivably long period of millions of kalpas. Always tranquil in samadhi, he had unhindered

wisdom. His mind was neither false nor devious.

7

The bodhisattva Dharmākara attained buddhahood over ten kalpas in the past, and now

exists in that land, which is one hundred thousand kotis of lands away from here in the west. The

land has a name, ‘Bliss’. The land is marvelous and surpasses all comparisons with this world.

The majestic light of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life is the best and most noble. The light of

the other buddhas cannot compare with it. The life of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life is long,

and it is impossible to express in numbers. Beings who attain birth in that land all enter the ranks

of the truly settled, attain nonretrogression and realize great joy.

This narrative was largely drawn from the Larger Sutra of (the Buddha of) Immeasurable Life

T. Vol. 12, 265c-279a, translated by Dennis Hirota. (Skt. Sukhavati-vyūha sutra; Jp. Bussetsu

Muryōju Kyō 仏説無量寿経; or, Daimuryōjukyō 大無量寿経) Also known as the Larger Sutra

(Daikyō 大経), Sutra in Two Fascicles (Sōkankyō 双巻経), or, Larger Text (Daibon 大本).

Traditionally, it has been said that this text was translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by

Samghavarman, during Ts'ao-Wei dynasty. However, it is believed to have been translated by

Buddhabhadra (359-429) and Baoyun (376-449), in 421.

The second important narrative is one shared by all other Buddhist traditions. It is story told

whenever the followers of a given Buddhist tradition read or hear the foundational scriptures of

their school, “Thus have I heard.” The spiritual authority and grounding for one’s teaching is

implied by those words. The historical Śakyamuni Buddha expounded the teaching of truth, and

that Dharma has been heard, accepted and transmitted to the devotees encountering that teaching

today. As we will see, modern historical research concludes that in fact no extant sutra can be

reliably traced back to the historical Buddha. But for countless Buddhist followers throughout

the centuries, particularly those who follow the Mahayana and Pure Land Sutras, this narrative

8

has been considered to be a historical fact.

Third, the Mahayana scriptures speak of countless Buddhas and countless Buddha-lands

through the cosmos. Buddhist cosmology presents the conception of an infinite number of

universes and innumerable Buddhas, more numerous than the sands of the River Ganges, are

active in their enlightenment. (Lamb, 1994)

Fourth, the Theory of the Dharma-ages presents a historical characterization of the

degeneration of the Buddhist Path since the time of Sakyamuni Buddha. It might be said to

represent a rendering of history as myth and of myth as history.While Jan Nattier points out the

early sources of the teaching of the inevitable decline of the Dharma, Shinran draws chiefly from

Daochou, rendition of the Dharma-ages theory that is presented in the Passages on the Land of

Happiness. The most widely cited theory describes three periods:

1. Right dharma-age - a 500-year period after Sakyamuni's death in which true teaching,

practice, realization continue to exist.

2. Semblance dharma-age – the next 1,000-year period of time in which only true

teaching & practice remain.

3. Last dharma-age - the next 10,000-year period in which Buddhist paths degenerate to

such an extent that only true teaching remains.

Shinran cites Daochou at length and then offers his own historical calculation that,

…we find that we are already 673 years into the last dharma-age. CWS, 244

Fifth, the Buddhist notion of transmigration within samsaric existence establishes the

cosmological and soteriological framework within which Shinran’s path of birth through

nembutsu/shinjin operates. Even if the transmigration paradigm is historically accurate, some

characterize it as a mythical, pre-scientific, and pre-logical way of considering the human

condition. (Lamb, 1994). Our fundamental ignorance and the karmic actions that arise from it

that binds us to cycles of birth-and-death. In Shin Buddhism in particular, this karmic anchoring

to samsaric existence underlies the narrative of evil and the salvation of foolish, evil beings

9

through the power of Amida Buddha’s Vow.

Finally, brief mention must be made to the many legends, folk tales, stories (densetsu,

setsuwa, engi) that have arisen within the communities of Shin followers. Frequently miraculous

in nature, many of these tales often combine hagiographic praise of Shinran and other known

figures with local customs and folk beliefs.

Since there is no time today to consider all of these narratives, I would like discuss first the

notion that the historical Sakyamuni Buddha was the expounder of the Larger Sutra and then the

Dharmakara/Amida Buddha narrative. I will consider the manner in which the two narratives are

in fact inter-related and mutually-transforming. I will then suggest that Shinran’s treatment of

both narratives raises the notion that upāya in two related senses - upāya as compassionate

means and upāya as provisional means - might represent an approach that reveals a Shin

Buddhist consideration of myth and history. My proposal will be that in Shinran upāya is

positioned as a demythologizing myth in which upāya as compassionate means and upāya as

provisional means represent the dynamic activity of enlightenment – Amida Buddha’s

intentionality – that is encountered actively on the Shin Buddhist path of practice.

V. Shinran’s demythologizing of Pure Land Buddhism

Sakyamuni Buddha as the expounder of the Larger Sutra

John Makransky reminds us that today’s historical research allows us to understand that the

historical Buddha Sakyamuni could not have been the expounder of any of the Mahayana sutras.

The Mahayana Sutras began to appear at the beginning of the Common Era, at least four to five

centuries after the death of Sakyamuni, and many were composed even later. In fact, it is

generally recognized that Sakyamuni could not have been the direct source of any known sutra.

Given that historical approach, Makransky is critical of sectarian Buddhists and scholars who

10

even today continue to maintain the myth that Sakyamuni authored the Mahayana texts.

Mahayana sutras employ literary devices to mythologize history to place the sutra back into

the time of Sakyamuni, who can inspire and certify it. The Buddha’s authority and power come

not just from the historical Buddha, but from the wisdom of enlightenment itself, realized by

others in the sangha. This he calls the “trans-historical Buddha” – a nondual awareness of

dharmatā. The original expositor of the sutra is Dharmakāya – the embodiment of the real nature

of things in direct knowledge. This “body” has then been embodied by many historically and

culturally conditioned persons as agents of awakening (rupakāya).

This gives rise to the “vast” Mahayana doctrine of skillful means (upāya-kausalya).

It includes the infinite scope of activities and methods through which buddhas and

bodhisattvas communicate Dharma in precise ways appropriate to the capacities of all living

beings. (Makransky, 2000: 113-115)

The Larger Sutra was likely translated from an earlier Sanskrit text in 421 CE by

Buddhabhadra and Baoyun. Yet, it is quite likely that Shinran was not aware of current historical

research and believed wholeheartedly that the historical Sakyamuni did in fact and history

expound the Larger Sutra. For him, there that was not a myth; rather, he likely considered it to be

a historical certainty and of ultimate significance.

In the Chapter on Teaching in his True Teaching, Practice and Realization of the Pure Land

Way, Shinran begins his explication of the true teaching with the frame narrative of The Sutra of

Immeasurable Life. There it relates that, as he sits before Sakyamuni, Ananda becomes amazed at

the radiance and majesty of the Buddha's entire countenance. He thereupon rises from his seat

and praises the Buddha's luminous appearance. He then states,

Today, the World-honored one abides in the dharma most rare and wondrous. Today, the

Great Hero abides where all Buddhas abide. Today, the World's Eye abides in the activity of

guide and teacher. Today, the Preeminent one of the world abides in the supreme

11

enlightenment. Today, the Heaven-honored one puts into practice the virtue of all Tathagatas.

The Buddhas of the past, future and present all think on one another. Do not you, the present

Buddha, also think on all the other Buddhas now? Why does your commanding radiance

shine forth with such brilliance? (CWS 7-8)

Following another exchange in which Ananda assures the Buddha that the question was his

own, Sakyamuni praises his wisdom and then declares,

I have appeared in the world and expounded the teachings of the way to enlightenment,

seeking to save the multitudes of living beings by blessing them with the benefit that is true

and real. Rare is it to encounter and rare to behold a Tathagata, even in countless millions of

kalpas. It is like the blossoming of the udumbara, which seldom occurs. This question you

now ask will bring immense benefit; it will enlighten the minds of all devas and human

beings. (CWS 8)

After this exchange, Sakyamuni tells the story of Dharmākara's aspiration for enlightenment,

establishment of Vows and performance of practices. In classic analysis, this narrative constitutes

the central message of the sutra. Shinran, however, does not cite that portion of the text in his

Chapter on Teaching. Instead, for him the crucial moment in the sutra is found in the opening

exchange between Ananda and Śakyamuni. It is that frame narrative that leads Shinran to declare

that the sutra is the true teaching received through Amida’s directing of virtue. In the passage

from The Sutra of Immeasurable Life Śakyamuni responds to Ananda's question, "Do not you,

the present Buddha, also think on all the other Buddhas now?," in the affirmative, saying he has

attained the essential quality of all Buddhas ("the place where all Buddhas abide"). The parallel

passage from The Sutra of the Tathagata of Immeasurable Life includes a sentence (not cited by

Shinran) that Śakyamuni has entered the great tranquility samadhi (daijakujō ). The Nirvana

Sutra, fascicle 30, equates the great quiescence with great nirvana. (CWS 183). Past scholars

have held that entry into the great tranquility samadhi means that all ignorance and passions have

been completely eliminated. That is, all Buddhas have realized or manifested this nirvana. Hence,

Śakyamuni now dwells in the realm of great nirvana, where all buddhas dwell. Here, Śakyamuni

sees and knows what all buddhas in the past, present and future see and know (butsu butsu

12

sōnen).

Thus, Śakyamuni enters into the great tranquility samadhi and becomes melded into the

virtues of Amida Buddha, becoming one with Amida Buddha. Amida is manifested in the

resplendent appearance of Sakyamuni thus is seen as a transformed Buddha, whose form is

perceptible by beings. That the state perceived and praised by Ananda. For Shinran, as

Śakyamuni expounds the Larger Sutra in history, Amida Buddha expounds the true teaching in a

manner that surpasses all historical conditioning. For the Shin Buddhist follower who encounters

the Larger Sutra, the myth of Śakyamuni’s exposition is likewise transformed into a direct

encounter with Amida Buddha’s voice.

In Makransky’s terminology, Shinran points to the trans-historical Buddha that is the source

of the “vast” Mahayana doctrine of skillful means.

The Dharmākara Bodhisattva/ Amida Buddha narrative in Pure Land Buddhism

The story in the Larger Sutra in which Dharmākara Bodhisattva becomes Amida Buddha

follows a course envisioned by Mahayana Buddhist thought and practice. The Pure Land sutras

open a window through which one can perceive an important dimension of Mahayana

Buddhism: “the point at which cosmology, the theory of spiritual self-cultivation and a

mythology of hope meet. The story represents the transformation of self-effort into hope. In this

belief system, there are two dimensions: a mythic content and a religious intention.” (Gomez,

1996: 25-29)

The narrative is marvelous. Mythic in imagery and dimension, it is capable of overturning a

person’s inclination to rely on self-will and effort in order to overcome suffering. It can awaken

awe in the most ordinary person and give birth to a profound shift in aspiration and faith. See, for

instance, the way in which the Contemplation Sutra instructs practitioners to engage in a range of

13

contemplations on Amida Buddha and his land. Among them is the ninth contemplation, which

states in part,

[N]ext envision the physical characteristics and the light of Amitāyus. Ananda, you should

realize that his body is as glorious as a thousand million kotis of nuggets of gold from the

Jambu River of the Yama Heaven and that his height is six hundred thousand kotis of nayutas

of yojanas multiplied by the number of the sands of the Ganges. The white tuft of hair curling

to the right between his eyebrows is five times as big as Mount Sumeru. and the Pure Land

(Inagaki, 1994: 332-2)

The Larger Sutra describes some of the adornments of the Pure Land in this way,

Further, the halls, living quarters, palaces and storied pavilions, all adorned with the seven

precious substances, appear miraculously of themselves. Covering them is a jewel-canopy

composed of pearls, moon-radiant mani-jewels, and various other gems. Everywhere about

the buildings, both inside and out, there are ponds for bathing ten yojanas, or twenty or thirty,

up to one hundred thousand yojanas across. (CW 208-9)

This brief exposure to the Dharmākara – Amida Buddha narrative is sufficient, I believe, to

open our eyes to the spiritual power that it must have had on the practice and lifestyle, as well as

the mythical imagination of Pure Land followers.

In contrast to such traditional Pure Land expressions, however, Shinran made a point not to

draw upon the narratives found in the Pure Land sutras to, describe and explain Amida Buddha

and Pure Land. Instead, he frequently referred to Amida and the Pure Land as light.

Reverently contemplating the true Buddha and the true land, I find that the Buddha is the

Tathagata of inconceivable light and the land also is the land of immeasurable light. (CWS, 177)

Moreover, Shinran, being grounded in Mahayana teaching of nondiscriminative wisdom,

insisted on using Mahayana expressions, such as “non-arising,” “impermanence,”

“emancipation,” “unconditioned,” “great quiescence,” “tathagata,” “Buddha-nature” and

“supreme nirvana” in reference to Amida and the Pure Land.

Mahāyāna foundations of Shinran’s thought

It is well-established that Shinran engaged in a reformulation of traditional Pure Land

Buddhist forms of thought, practice and salvation. Grounded thoroughly in the radical duality

and depth of awareness, as well as insight into the unfolding of nondiscriminative wisdom as

14

compassionate working in Mahāyāna, Shinran brought the promise of creative transformation

and fulfillment to the Shin Buddhist follower.

Upāya (Jp. hōben) is a key feature of the Mahāyāna Buddhist path. Upāya generally refers

to something adulterated or superficial. But, upaya is not a synonym for falsehood. Rather it

belongs, in its essence, to truth. The Buddhist notion of upāya, is commonly rendered as

expedient means. In the general sense of the term, upāya is a reference to a teaching or manner

of teaching that is not true and yet not false. Such a teaching or form of teaching is, instead,

considered to be a provisional or expedient means that is utilized to transmit the true teaching

effectively (gonke hōben). In other words, this expedient teaching is to be accepted, followed, or

understood temporarily. It is then something to be discarded as one turns and enters the next gate

or stage of religious maturity (zanyu genpai). Upāya could be false, provisional or ultimately true.

In general, therefore, it appears to share some features in common with myth.

Upāya in this generic sense has made its way into the English vernacular. We often hear

people use such expressions as, “All teachings are upāya,” or say with a wink, “Well, it’s just an

upāya, you know.” Upāya is sometimes taken to mean a little white lie, like when we tell

children that Santa Claus will know if they’ve been naughty or nice. Of course, to say so is to lie,

but it’s an expedient lie in which the end justifies the means.

Buddhist thought offers a broader perspective to this generic (and often misused) notion of

upāya. From the Mahayana standpoint in particular, upâya becomes an expression, or

manifestation, of the Buddha’s wisdom and compassion, which is directed to the emancipation of

beings (zengyō hōben). The most noted example of this idea of upāya-as-Buddha-activity is

found in the parable in Lotus Sutra, in which the children playing inside a burning house are

lured out of it by been shown a deer-drawn cart and a goat-drawn cart. Upon exiting the house

15

they find only one cart drawn by a white ox. This parable is oft-cited by Mahayanists to explain

that the sravaka and pratyeka-buddha vehicles, which were easy to grasp and understand, were

first provided by the Buddha to ignorant beings as provisional paths that would lure them from

their attachment to samsaric existence. Both paths, however, constituted skillful means, which

were intended to bring all beings to the one great vehicle—the Mahayana bodhisattva path.

Shinran’s writings reveal that he was quite aware of this notion of upāya-as-Buddha-activity.

It can also be gleaned from his work that he gave the notion of expedient means a uniquely Pure

Land Buddhist spin by placing the theoretical foundation for the efficacy of upāya in the idea of

the inter-penetration of dharma-body as suchness and dharma-body as compassionate means.

In 1971 Bandō Shōjun explained that the Chinese Pure Land master T’an-luan saw the

harmonious unity of the thoughts of Non-being (Madhyamika prajna paramita philosophy based

on the principle of sunyata) and Being (Yogacara or vijnaptimatrata philosophy based upon the

principle of prajnapti or phenomenal being). He was instrumental in clarifying and systematizing

of those two principles, contributing greatly to Pure Land thought and exerting great influence on

Shinran.

As a Yogacarin, Vasubandhu was inclined toward the concrete and substantive descriptions

of the Pure Land in the Larger Sutra. This, says Bandō, is a form of “mythology.” Nagarjuna’s

Madhyamika philosophy refused to represent nirvana in positive or material form. Thus,

T’an-luan found himself having to deal with “mythological expressions” of Vasubandhu. “Thus,

it could be said that he performed the task of demythologizing the Pure Land so as to bring all

those who are faced with this mythology into direct contact with its inner spiritual meaning on an

experiential level. … The so-called Pure Land is none other than a path which leads ultimately to

Buddhahood; it is a supreme upāya.” (Bandō, 1971: 81)

16

T’an-luan here expresses the non-dual relationship between nirvana or the ultimate state of

enlightenment and the so-called Pure Land. This is the character of Pure Land Buddhism – to

attempt to objectify (as upāya) what can never be objectified.

Further, T’an-luan applied his synthetic approach to another of Vasubandhu’s teaching –

that of the twofold dharma-body. Shinran reintroduces the story of Dharmākara in order to reveal

the soteriological implications of T’anluan’s notion is that the dharmabody as suchness (hosshō

hosshin), which is inconceivable and formless, gives rise to the dharmabody as compassionate

means (hōben hosshin), which manifests form in order to enable ignorant beings to encounter

suchness.

Dharma-nature is dharma-body. For this reason there are two kinds of dharma-body with

regard to the Buddha. The first is called dharma-body as suchness and the second,

dharma-body as compassionate means. Dharma-body as suchness has neither color nor form;

thus, the mind cannot grasp it nor words describe it. From this oneness was manifested form,

called dharma-body as compassionate means.

Taking this form, the Buddha announced the name Bhiksu Dharmākara and established the

Forty-eight great Vows that surpass conceptual understanding. Among these Vows are the

Primal Vow of immeasurable light and the universal Vow of immeasurable life, and to the

form manifesting these two Vows Bodhisattva Vasubandhu gave the title, "Tathagata of

unhindered light filling the ten quarters." This Tathagata has fulfilled the Vows, which are the

cause of that Buddhahood, and thus is called "Tathagata of the fulfilled body." This is none

other than Amida Tathagata.

"Fulfilled" means that the cause for enlightenment has been fulfilled. From the fulfilled body

innumerable personified and accommodated bodies are manifested, radiating the unhindered

light of wisdom throughout the countless worlds. Thus appearing in the form of light called

"Tathagata of unhindered light filling the ten quarters," it is without color and without form;

that is, it is identical with the dharma-body as suchness, dispelling the darkness of ignorance

and unobstructed by karmic evil. For this reason it is called "unhindered light." "Unhindered"

means that it is not obstructed by the karmic evil and blind passions of beings. Know,

therefore, that Amida Buddha is light, and that light is the form taken by wisdom. (CWS 461)

Shinran, moreover, employed the more generally recognized notion regarding the three

bodies of the Buddha. He identifies Dharmākara and Amida Buddha as fulfilled bodies. As

such they function as formless suchness that has arisen as form (light) and revealed a Name,

in order to make themselves known to beings.

17

From this treasure ocean of oneness form was manifested, taking the name of Bodhisattva

Dharmākara, who, through establishing the unhindered Vow as the cause, became Amida

Buddha. For this reason Amida is the "Tathagata of fulfilled body." Amida has been called

"Buddha of unhindered light filling the ten quarters." This Tathagata is also known as

Namu-fukashigiko-butsu (Namu-Buddha of inconceivable light) and is the "dharma-body as

compassionate means." "Compassionate means" refers to manifesting form, revealing a name,

and making itself known to sentient beings. It refers to Amida Buddha. (CWS 486)

Significantly, says Shinran, Amida is samboghakāya, the fulfilled body and many other

transformed bodies

Amida Tathāgata comes forth from suchness and manifests various bodies—fulfilled,

accommodated, and transformed. (CWS, 153)

Here Shinran makes reference to traditional Pure Land imagery and narratives, which

disclose that there exist transformed Buddha-bodies and lands. Revealed for beings who wish to

engage in practices of self-will and calculated efforts on paths of self-cultivation, such imagery

would represent provisional means, another sense of upāya, that would make the path of

enlightenment possible for them.

Upāya as demythologizing myth

Shinran’s insight into the multidimensional function of upāya represents a process of

demythologization. As we have seen, for him the Dharmakara/Amida narrative was not the focal

point that revealed the Larger Sutra to be the true teaching of the Shin Buddhist path. By

declaring that narrative to be a myth, in effect an upāya as provisional means, he was able to

valorize another narrative within the same sutra. That is, he found the truth of the Shin teaching –

the Larger Sutra itself – within the Sakyamuni-Ananda narrative. For Shinran Sakyamumi came

to manifest Amida Buddha within historical actuality. Hence, the Larger Sutra was itself the

manifestation of immeasurable light and life within historical time, within the awakened heart of

the individual.

Here we must turn to Makransky’s second critique. The failure on the part of Buddhist

followers and scholar to engage in historical studies can lead to an absolutizing a mythical past in

18

which Sakyamuni taught in different ways because of the different capacities of beings. As a

consequence, one comes to identify a particular teaching as true, while characterizing other

teachings as lesser means, intended for persons of lesser capacities. This “narrower”

understanding of skillful means is often used to legitimize and enhance sectarian absolutism. In

response he calls for a more expansive perspective on upāya, grounded upon solid understanding

of its historical and cultural context. (Makransky, 2000: 117-118)

Does Shinran leave himself open to the critique that this is simply a narrower form of upaya

that absolutizes a particular teaching? His scheme for the classification of all Buddhist teachings,

in which the Paths of the Sages and Pure Land Paths of self-power are determined to be

provisional paths that eventually lead a practice to entrust in the 18th Vow is certainly worthy of

careful consideration in this light.

I would like to submit that the purpose of Shinran’s systems of religious classification was

not simply an effort to declare the supremacy of the true essence of the Pure Land Way. Rather, it

was intended, I believe, to give expression to the dynamic working of upāya as both

compassionate means and skillful means to lead beings of various paths to the true Pure Land

Path. At the same time, I would very much welcome a careful and respectful dialog with persons

from other religions and other Buddhist traditions would be a fruitful opportunity to gain a fuller

appreciation for Shinran’s perspective on upāya.

Acknowledging that my further consideration is necessary, allow me to suggest now that

Shinran is engaged in a demythologization of both narratives through his treatment of both the

vast and narrow sense of upāya.

It has been argued that this approach was continued by Shin Buddhist thinkers in the

modern period in their efforts to demythologize the principal Shin Buddhist narrative. Nonomura

19

Naotaro’s criticism of the traditional Pure Land Buddhist perspectives was two-fold: first, he

claimed that the ultimate intent of the Pure Land teaching is not to be born in Amida’s Pure Land

after death. Second, he claimed that the Pure Land scriptures offer nothing more that

mythological expressions of the Buddha and Pure Land. Such expressions have no ontological

reality, but are no more than means to lead beings to realize deep religious mind (jinshin or

shinjin) here and now.

Soga Ryōjin made the claim that Dharmākara is not simply a myth, but the symbol of

Amida Buddha’s vows of salvation that is actively at work within the human heart. The arising

of faith is in itself the birth of Dharmākara within the human heart, which we discover in faith.

(Soga, 2011)

Kaneko Daiei addressed the question of the Pure Land by stating that it is not an existing

place. Rather it is an idea, in the Kantian sense. A symbol of our deepest yearning to live in a

world free of suffering. Amida Buddha and the Pure Land manifest in the self-awareness of the

person of faith. (Kaneko, 1927)

Shigaraki Takamaro has made the assertion that Amida Buddha developed in the process of

immortalizing and idealizing of Sakyamuni Buddha. Also, Amida Buddha constitutes a religious

symbol, as clarified in Nagarjuna’s Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa (Daichidoron) and Paul

Tillich’s theology. (Shigaraki, 2001)

In particular, I would like to point to Dennis Hirota’s consideration of mythic narrative and

the significance that it holds in the initial stage of a practicer’s engagement with the Pure Land

path. Shinran’s interpretation of the Pure Land teaching is to articulate two distinct stages of a

person’s engagement of the path: an initial engagement whereby one enters the path bearing an

internal dialectic: (1) a teleological mode of self-will and an interpersonal mode that is based on

20

the self-Buddha duality; and (2) a mature phase of engagement in which the dualities are both

negated and affirmed. One now perceives life as a locus of ongoing transformation and

awakening.

In the initial phase, a person’s teleological movement toward the Pure Land is embraced

within a larger teleology (that of Dharmākara becoming Amida), giving rise to the conception of

an interpersonal relationship. Self-will is applied to reach the Pure Land by placing oneself in

accord with Amida’s will.

Hirota writes, “In this case, the narrative of Dharmākara -Amida functions as a myth that,

as an account of events that take place in primordial time prior to all history, presents the origins

of salvific features of the cosmos. The myth of Amida provides for an understanding of the

Buddha and the Pure Land and the effectiveness of the nembutsu as the means for attaining it. At

the same time, there is an implied continuity or contiguity with the history of this world. Again,

as typical of such myths, the problem for the practice is to relate that time in the infinite past with

the time of present existence.”

In mature or fulfilled engagement, which harbors a fusion of temporal existence and true

reality (as shinjin), there arises an integration of the teleological and interpersonal modes of

apprehension. “Here, the narrative of the Primal Vow ceases to be grasped as an account of the

primordial past as an anterior extension of this world, and comes to inform present existence

with the disclosive quality by which the practicer lives in self-awareness of delusional

attachment as awareness of truth.” Shinran’s understanding of the integrated structure of the

apprehension of reality, Hirota states, may be considered in terms of his statements regarding two

sources-or perhaps a twofold character-of shinjin. These correspond to two dimensions of reality

(dharma-body) or Buddha.” (Hirota, 2000)

21

“Provisionality” may or may not be an appropriate expression for this dynamic working of

upâya, A being obsessed with self-power might initially accept a provisional path as his or her

own true path, and thereafter pursue it whole-heartedly. However, as a product of the Buddha’s

skillful calculation, this provisional path is built, as it were, for self-destruction somewhere along

the way. Somewhere in the process of its skillfully planned obsolescence, the path begins to

reveal its limitations (as the depth of the practicer's blind passions and self-attachment also

become revealed) with the practicer’s experience of failure and frustration. As its limitations are

(self-) revealed, the practicer will eventually move past it, knowing now that it is merely

provisional and not ultimately effective. Thus, as it reveals its un-truth (its limitations), as well as

the practicer's un-truth (deep self-attachment), the true import of the provisional path will be

revealed, and it will realize its fulfillment as it moves the practicer beyond itself to the true path

of Other Power.

V. “Entirely for the sake of myself alone” - the coalescence of myth and history

As I conclude this paper, I would like to return once more to the issue of religious time. In

his article, “The Problem of Time in Shinran,” Nishitani Keiji writes that when Dharmākara set

forth and fulfilled the 18th Vow Shinran’s salvation was settled on the part of the Buddha.

Rejecting the notions that such a statement is an example of either predestination or universalism,

Nishitani explains that the Primal Vow manifests itself directly to each individual being within

historical time, and each being becomes present in the time of the Vow’s fulfillment through the

power of the Vow turning itself over to him.

This is the “now” in the true sense.” “Time is,” he states, “in its most fundamental nature,

religious. And this nature of time emerges as present only through man’s religious existence. In

Shinran’s religious experience, the historical time of his realization of shinjin is simultaneously

22

the time of the working of the power of the Primal Vow,” which is simultaneous with its

fulfillment.

In Nishitani’s insight, Shinran’s existence, in its historical and geographic location, is

extracted from all space and time and stands “as the only person, alone in the universe.” This

means that Shinran’s self-realization is always deepening as he traces back to the source – “the

present more present than any particular present.” There the Vow’s fulfillment (the past to any

past), the establishment of the Pure Land (the future for any future), and the time of the turning

over of the power of the Primal Vow (the present at any point in the present) are all

transcendentally one in the very body of Amida.

In this “now,” Shinran is drawn to, grounded upon, and opened up by the Buddha’s upāya

and, at the coalescence of myth and historical actuality, he can only exclaim, “How I am filled

with gratitude for the Primal Vow, in which Amida resolved to save me, though I am burdened

with such heavy karma!” (Nishitani 1978:22-26, and CWS, 679.)

References

Texts

Armstrong, Karen. A Short History of Myth. Edinburgh & New York: Canongate, 2005.

Bond, Helen K., et al. ed. Religious Studies and Theology: An Introduction. New York: New York

University Press, 2003.

Dubuisson, Daniel. Twentieth Century Mythologies: Dumezil, Levi-Strauss, Eliade. Translated by Martha

Cunninghan. London & Oakville: Equinox Publishing, 2006.

Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. New York & Evanston: Harper & Row, 1963.

Fujita, Kōtatsu. Genshi Jōdokyō shisō no kenkyū. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1970.

Gomez, Luis O. Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light. Sanskrit and Chinese

Versions of the Sukavativyuha Sutras. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1996.

Hirota, Dennis, ed. Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism: Creating a Shin

Buddhist Theology in a Religiously Plural World. Albany: SUNY Press, 2000.

Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras: A study and translation. Kyoto: Nagata bunshodo, 1994,

332-3.

Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha. The Collected Works of Shinran, vol 1. Translated by Dennis Hirota, et al.

Kyoto: Hongwanji International Center, 1997.

Kaneko, Daiei. Jōdo no kannen. Kyōto: Bun’eidō, 1927.

Leeming, David Adams. The World of Myth: An Anthology. New York & Oxford. Oxford University Press,

2014.

23

Nattier, Jan. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley: Asian

Humanities Press, 1991.

Nishitani, Keiji. Religion and Nothingness. Translated with an Introduction by Jan Van Bragt. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1982.

Nonomura, Naotaro. Jōdokyō hihan. Kyōto: Chūgai nippō shakan, 1980.

Olson, Carl. Religious Studies: The Key Concepts. Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2011.

Shigaraki, Takamaro. Heart of the Shin Buddhist Path: A Life of Awakening. Boston: Wisdom

Publications, 2013.

Strenski, Ivan. Four Theories of Myth in Twentieth-Century History: Cassirer, Eliade, Levi-Strauss and

Malinowsky. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1987.

Ueda, Yoshifumi and Dennis Hirota. Shinran: An Introduction to His Thought. Kyōto: Hongwanji

International Center, 1989.

Articles

Bandō, Shōjun. “Shinran’s Indebtedness to T’an-luan.” The Eastern Buddhist. New Series Vol. IV. No. 1,

May 1971, 72-87.

Barrett, Timothy. “History.” In Critical Terms for the Study of Buddhism. Edited by Donald S. Lopez.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005, 124-142.

Bolle, Kees W. 1987 and 2005. “Myth: An Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Religion. Second Edition.

Editor in chief: Lindsay Jones. Farmington Hills: Thompson Gate, 2005, 6359-6371.

Davies, Douglas. “Introduction: Raising the Issues.” In Myth and History. Edited by Jean Holm. London:

Pinter Publishers Ltd, 1994, 1-7.

Lamb, Christopher. “Buddhism” In Myth and History. Edited by Jean Holm. London: Pinter Publishers

Ltd, 1994, 8-39.

Makransky, John J. “Historical Consciousness as an Offering to the Trans-Historical Buddha.” In

Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars. Edited by Roger R.

Jackson and John J. Makransky. Surrey: Curzon, 2000, 111-135.

McCutcheon, Russell T. “Myth.” In Guide to the Study of Religion. Edited by Willi Braun and Russell T.

McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 2000, 190-208

Nishitani, Keiji. “The Problem of Time in Shinran.” The Eastern Buddhist. New Series Vol. XI. No. 1,

May 1978, 13-26.

Nomura, Nobuo. “A Myth of the Pure Land.” In Memory and Imagination: Essays and Explorations in

Buddhist Thought and Culture. Edited by Dr. Ronald Y. Nakasone Festschrift Committee. Kyoto:

Nagata Bunshodo, 2010, 57-72.

Omine, Akira. “Shinjin is the Eternal Now.” Translated by David Matsumoto. In Living in Amida’s

Universal Vow: Essays in Shin Buddhism. Edited by Alfred Bloom. Bloomington: World Wisdom,

2004, 73-76.

Ricoeur, Paul. 1987. “Myth and History.” In Encyclopedia of Religion. Second Edition. Editor in chief:

Lindsay Jones. Farmington Hills: Thompson Gate, 2005, 6371-6381.

Satlow, Michael L. “Tradition: the power of constraint.” In The Cambridge Companion to Religious

Studies. Edited by Robert A. Orsi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Shigaraki, Takamaro. “The Problem of the True and the False in Contemporary Shin Buddhist Studies:

True Shin Buddhism and False Shin Buddhism.” The Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of

Buddhist Studies. Third Series Number 3,Fall 2001, 27-52.

Soga, Ryōjin. “A Savior on Earth: The Meaning of Dharmakara Bodhisattva’s Advent.” Translated by Jan

Van Bragt. In Cultivating Spirituality: A Modern Shin Buddhist Anthology. Edited by Mark L. Blum

and Robert F. Rhodes. Albany: SUNY Press, 2011.

Soga, Ryōjin. “Shinran’s View of Buddhist History.” Translated by Jan Van Bragt. In Cultivating

Spirituality: A Modern Shin Buddhist Anthology. Edited by Mark L. Blum and Robert F. Rhodes.

Albany: SUNY Press, 2011.