Erik Joseph FergusonZen BuddhismProfessor Kenny12.02.2003

Hakuin's Orategama Zokushū and the Advocation of Zen as the Superior Practice

During the Kamakura period of Japan three new currents of mass-

movement Buddhism would develop: Zen, Pure Land, and Nichiren. The

renowned Rinzai Zen monk Hakuin, in his letter Orategama Zokushū, sought

to answer the question of “Which is superior, the Kōan or the Nembutsu?”

However, Hakuin misunderstands the nature of the nembutsu, the method of

practice, the means by which liberation is achieved, and the goal of nembutsu

practice. Ultimately, Hakuin attempts to re-interpret Pure Land doctrine so as

to facilitate a comparison between Rinzai Zen and nembutsu practice that

illustrates his belief in the superiority of Rinzai Zen.

Before analyzing Hakuin’s claims it is necessary to provide an

overview of the doctrine of the sects that he addresses. The two main sects

that founded their ideology upon the nembutsu are the Jōdoshū of Hōnen and

the Jōdo Shinshū of Shinran, who was Hōnen's disciple. The origin and

purpose of the nembutsu is elaborated in the Mury ōjukyō , or Larger Pure

Land S ū tra . It is in this sūtra that Amida Buddha makes the vow that all

beings who call upon his name will be born into his Pure Land, where one

may enter the stage of nonretrogression and practice the true Dharma without

Ferguson

any obstacles. The fundamental message presented is that faith in tariki, or the

other-power, or tariki, of the compassionate salvative power of Amida

Buddha should be relied upon. For Hōnen this means that a person should

diligently chant the nembutsu, “namu Amida butsu,” or “Hail to Amida

Buddha.” Shrinan would extend the idea of faith even further in declaring

that even the nembutsu is a secondary practice because all willful acts of

intention are not tariki but rather manifestations of self-effort, or jiriki. The

specifics of Shinran's view shall be encountered later on. The Pure Land path

recognizes that man's sense of self is rooted in destructive passions and that

all good deeds are riddled with ulterior motives of self-benefit through the

false delusion of jiriki (Bloom, 30). The context of the nembutsu is the historical

age of mappō, the age of the decline of the Buddhist Dharma or teachings. In

this age the true teachings have been lost and none can achieve liberation

through self-effort. As such, the nembutsu is perceived as the sole practice by

which liberation can be attained, but it is of course through the power of the

Buddha, not the individual.

Hakuin, however, seems to lack a basic understanding of the nature of

the practice of the nembutsu and its relation to tariki. He compares the

chanting of the nembutsu to the Mu kōan and “concentrated meditation”

(Hakuin, 127). Such an understanding is flawed in that both kōan practice and

meditation are acts of willful intent, or jiriki, and thus incompatible with faith.

2

Ferguson

While it is true that Hōnen allowed traditional Buddhist practices to

those possessed of sufficient development in faith, Hōnen states that

liberation occurs through the saving power of Amida and the nembutsu, not

through individual spiritual development. Indeed, it was the nembutsu's

ability to facilitate universal salvation to “believers in any station of life” that

attracted Hōnen to the nembutsu in the first place (Dobbins, 13). Furthermore,

the continuous repetition of the nembutsu has nothing to do with meditation

and the reasons for repeated practice trace back to an historical incident.

During Hōnen’s life people began to misinterpret his doctrine in a manner

that justified evil acts. Such a misinterpretation, in regards to the Jōdoshū,

was partially based upon ichinen, or the practice of saying the nembutsu only

once (and thus believing that birth in the Pure Land is assured so that one

may do as one pleases). Hōnen countered this argument by advocating the

continued recitation of the nembutsu throughout one’s life as a beneficial

moral practice (Dobbins, 49-52) that also served to ensure that a proper state

of faithful mind remained continuous throughout one's life (Bloom, 21-22). To

perceive repeated chanting of the nembutsu as a meditative act shows a

misunderstanding of the method of practice entailed and the historical

situation that mandated such a view of Hōnen’s.

On the other hand, Shinran completely dismisses all acts of jiriki as

being not beneficial or even harmful. For Shinran, the nembutsu is a gift

bestown upon the believer through the compassion of Amida and evoked

3

Ferguson

from the believer through Amida’s charisma (Dobbins, 35). For Shinran, any

other characterization of the nembutsu falls under the class of heretical

teachings.

The goal of both Shinran and Hōnen is to cultivate a tripartite true

faith: faith in the vow and the nembutsu; sincerity of faith; and desire to be

born in the Pure Land (Dobbins, 34; citing Kyōgōshinshō: Shinshū Shiryō

Shūsei 2:59, 68). The nembutsu is not a practice but rather an expression of

faith devoid of meaning without the aspect of true faith behind it, for the

practice of salvation is not performed through any device of the believer but

rather by the Buddha himself (Bloom, 70-72). As such, Shinran is completely

unconcerned with the jiriki of kōan practice and meditation.

Hakuin also misinterprets the nembutsu as it relates to a means along

the way of Buddhist practice. Hakuin likens Rinzai Zen and the nembutsu as

two staves of different materials that are only useful in the case of determined

effort and exertion; as such, one should not classify one staff as being superior

to another (Hakuin, 132). Hakuin is attempting to state that things have

meaning only if they are used. Hakuin further states that “If the practitioner

does not have that valiant will to succeed, neither the calling of the name nor

the koan will be of any use whatsoever” (Hakuin, 132). Unfortunately, this

argument of Hakuin's fails to address the issue of which practice is superior if

both are carried out in full. As such, Hakuin's particular point is difficult to

discern.

4

Ferguson

Hakuin also fails to understand the goal of nembutsu practice. Hakuin

takes his own goal of Rinzai Zen -- seeing into one's true nature (Hakuin, 127,

133) and attaining samadhi, or a “state of mind undisturbed” (Hakuin,130) --

and transplants his own sect's goals as the goals of the Pure Land sects. For

example, Hakuin questions the virtues gained from nembutsu practice in

stating the following:

...[I]f you are looking for something that will help you attain

continuous uninterrupted true meditation and insight into your

own nature, then calling the Buddha's name is fine, but you

could as well recite the grain-grinding song instead. Do not

think you are going to become a Buddha by deliberately

discarding the essentials of seeing into your own nature and

turning instead to the virtues gained from calling the Buddha's

name. (Hakuin, 133)

Hakuin once again mistakes the nembutsu to be some sort of meditative

practice with a goal in this life. Furthermore, Hakuin also attempts to redefine

the Pure Land concept of birth in the Pure Land in a Zen context. As Hakuin

writes:

If you take up one koan and investigate it unceasingly your

mind will die and your will will be destroyed... Then when

suddenly you return to life, there is the great joy of one who

drinks the water and knows for himself whether it is hot or cold.

This is known as rebirth in the Pure Land. This is known as

seeing into one's own nature. (Hakuin, 135-136)

5

Ferguson

Here Hakuin is stating that the Pure Land is a metaphor, an expedient means,

a form of upaya for the True Dharma (thus one could simply chant any song,

not just the nembutsu). Here, the “death” is that of the discursive intellect and

discriminative mind; the “birth” is that of the manifestation of one's original

nature. However, the fact of the matter is that, for Hōnen and Shinran, the

goal of nembutsu practice is not to see into one's own nature and obtain

samadhi but to be born into the Pure Land through the salvative power of

Amida Buddha. While Hōnen ascribes some moral virtue to the practice of the

nembutsu, he never claims it to evoke anything in particular in this life. Also,

Shinran specifically admonishes his followers against using the nembutsu in

any sort of immediate, practical capacity – such efforts represent jiriki, which

is to be avoided (Dobbins, 71). Furthermore, Shinran would come to be

quoted in the Tannishō as refuting the idea that “In this body overwhelmed

by evil intentions a person already achieves enlightenment” (Dobbins, 74;

citing Tannishō, 2:786). While Shinran's comments were primarily a critique of

imported Shingon Buddhist thought, it is equally applicable to Hakuin's

statements.

In the last half of the text, Hakuin makes comparisons between Rinzai

Zen and the Pure Land sects by name (in previously mentioned points

Hakuin addresses the nembutsu specifically), typically in terms of the

challenge and virtues of the Pure Land sects' practice. Hakuin first states, in

high words, that the techniques of Rinzai Zen are “of great benefit to people

6

Ferguson

of superior talents. Those of medium or inferior talents leave such things

alone...” (Hakuin, 142). While it is true that Pure Land practice is referred to as

the easy path, this is not to say that it is only suitable for those of diminished

mental capacity. Hakuin also states his understanding that Pure Land

practitioners are opposed to the traditional Buddhist practices, but does not

clarify this statement with the reason behind such a perspective, the reliance

upon tariki. Hakuin comments that “[the accomplishments of Amida Buddha]

were established solely for those of medium and inferior talents and are of

benefit to ignorant and stupid beings, enabling them to escape from the ten

evils and five deadly sins” (Hakuin, 142). It is of note that Hakuin here

manages a better understanding of the goal of the Pure Land sects than in his

previous reinterpretations, although the tone is condescending and the

description incomplete (the true goal is Nirvana in the Pure Land, then a

return to the world in order to liberate others in accordance with the

Bodhisattva ideal).

Hakuin next characterizes Rinzai Zen monks as giants and nembutsu

practitioners as midgets. Hakuin writes:

In Zen it is as though giants were pitted against one another,

with victory going to the tallest. In Pure Land it as through

midgets were set to fight, with victory going to the smallest. If

the tallness of Zen were despised and Zen done away with, the

true style of progress toward the Buddha mind would be swept

away and destroyed. If the lowness of the Pure Land teachings

7

Ferguson

were despised and cast aside, stupid, ignorant people would be

unable to escape the evil realms. (Hakuin, 142-143)

While not only serving as another illustration of Hakuin's combative, jiriki-

imbued spirit, this particular quotation also seems to exemplify Hakuin's true

view of the nembutsu: that it is useful for a set of people, but that the true path

is that of Rinzai Zen practice. Needless to say, the phrasing of Hakuin's

statement is probably intended to be a put-down on the Pure Land schools.

Hakuin next establishes a four-fold class system for the purpose of

comparison, with Zen as warriors, the teaching schools as farmers, the Ritsu

sect as craftsmen, and the Pure Land as merchants. Hakuin ascribes the Zen

warriors as being:

...Endowed with both knowledge and benevolence. perfects his

command of the military works, protects the ruler, subdues the

rebels, and brings peace to the country. He makes his lord like a

lord under Yao and Shun... he need not show anger, for the

people fear him... indeed he is a beautiful vessel, worthy of

respect. (Hakuin, 143)

Such a description reads like a passage from the Analects of Confucius or the

Mencius. Hakuin characterizes the Zen warrior as the ideal person capable of

restoring not only his fellow man to virtue but also his country to a Utopian

state akin to the legendary rule of Yao and Shun. Of note here is the mastery

of military works and the characteristic of fear that the Zen warrior invokes in

his people, to draw reference back to Hakuin's giants allegory. On the other

8

Ferguson

hand, the Pure Land merchants “comply with the demands of everyone”

(Hakuin, 143). Such a statement seeks to ridicule the Pure Land path as being

so open as to be absurd; for one cannot arrive at the magnificence of the Zen

warrior through such a surrender of individual power. This critique of tariki

represents the fundamental Zen ideal of ultimate self-effort in achieving

liberation.

Hakuin also states that while numerous Rinzai Zen practitioners have

reached their goal, very few nembutsu adherents have “attained the great joy

[of seeing into one's own nature]” (Hakuin, 144-145). Regarding nembutsu

adherents that have attained the Rinzai Zen goal, Hakuin uses the two monks

Eshin Sōzu and Myōhen Sōzu as examples (Hakuin, 139). However, these

monks are members of the Tendai and Shingon sects, respectively, and thus

represent the nembutsu in the form of an ancillary practice – not the exclusive

nembutsu to be found in Hōnen's and Shinran's thought (Bloom, 28). In both

cases their meditative form of nembutsu practice leads to the realization of

Nirvana in this life, which as previously stated is a concept dismissed by

Hōnen and Shinran. This example was probably included so as to

substantiate Hakuin's interpretation of Pure Land thought, but it merely

serves to illustrate, once again, Hakuin's misunderstanding of actual Pure

Land doctrine.

In the final section of the Orategama Zokushū Hakuin seemingly

analyzes the possibility of integrating the nembutsu into Rinzai Zen practice.

9

Ferguson

Returning back to Hakuin's Zen warrior versus Pure Land merchant analogy,

Hakuin makes the statement that should a warrior attempt to become a

merchant (or vice-versa) that such a person will be laughed at (Hakuin, 143).

Thus one can see Hakuin establishing a clear sectarian line. The reason for this

most likely can be traced back to Hakuin's earlier arguments regarding the

appropriateness of the Pure Land teachings for those of lesser capacities. For

Hakuin, a virtuous and intelligent Rinzai Zen monk debasing himself to the

Pure Land teachings is as preposterous as an ignorant merchant trying to act

like a samurai.

Hakuin next states that, “if you cannot attain to Zen, then when you

face death, try to be reborn into the Pure Land. Those who try to practice both

at the same time [will attain neither]” (Hakuin, 143). Once again, Hakuin

creates a clear line between Rinzai Zen practice and Pure Land practice, but

also makes a clear disctinction between the goals of the two practices and

their incompatibility.

Hakuin finally describes the essential aspect of Rinzai Zen as “the ball

of doubt.” Hakuin describes this state as “the time of the great penetration of

wondrous awakening, the state where the “Ka” is shouted” (Hakuin, 145).

Hakuin claims that such a state can be reached in less than a year and a half,

in comparison to the nembutsu requiring forty years of effort. It appears that

Hakuin has once again regressed into his own interpretation of the nembutsu

10

Ferguson

as a meditative practice, for the results of Pure Land practice are experienced

only after death.

Hakuin also makes a note regarding Hōnen. Hakuin commends Hōnen

as having been “virtuous, benevolent, righteous, persevering, and

courageous” (Hakuin, 146). Hakuin claims that Hōnen accomplished, at the

very least, the determination of his own rebirth. But from here Hakuin's letter

turns into lament, with Hakuin first lamenting that Hōnen should have been

able to accomplish the Rinzai Zen goal.

Hakuin's lament over Hōnen's ultimate failure flows into his lament

regarding the corruption of the Rinzai Zen school. Hakuin also specifically

criticizes Hui-yüan, who gave up on Zen and then attempted to integrate the

nembutsu with a rudimentary understanding of Zen (Hakuin, 147-148).

Hakuin also scoffs at Zen practitioners who, upon faced with death, resort to

the teachings of the nembutsu sects out of fear. Ultimately, Hakuin states that

such people who come from within Zen yet advocate the nembutsu do naught

but destroy the very foundation of the Zen school.

Hakuin's Orategama Zokushū proceeds through three phases. First,

Hakuin attempts to define the nembutsu in terms of Rinzai Zen practice. Next,

Hakuin proceeds to compare the Pure Land sects to Rinzai Zen, allowing the

Pure Land sects adherents of smaller capacity while proclaiming Rinzai Zen

to have followers of great strength (and thus being superior). Finally, Hakuin

expresses his displeasure with integrated teachings and his firm resolve that

11

Ferguson

Rinzai Zen and the nembutsu are irreconcilable through their different goals.

Hakuin sees the nembutsu as representing little more than an expedient means

for weaker people to achieve the goal of escaping the ten evils and five deadly

sins; a goal not comparable to the Rinzai Zen goal knowledge of original

nature and attainment of samadhi in this life.

In the end, the core concepts of jiriki versus tariki and great doubt

versus great faith are what come to odds. Zen is the path that recognizes the

potentiality of man, while Pure Land is that path that recognizes the

limitation of man.1 To try and compare the two is to compare apples and

oranges: while both schools are types of Buddhism, they are fundamentally

different on an individual basis. Perhaps Hakuin, in his reinterpretation of

nembutsu practice, sought to bring the two schools onto a level ideological

ground from which to measure their virtues. Hakuin initially grants

permission to those who would use the nembutsu as a meditative act, but later

on changes his mind to endorse the heightened efficacy of the Mu kōan.

Indeed, Hakuin's letter begins with relative tolerance (trying to rectify his

meditative nembutsu practice with Rinzai Zen practice) but progresses to

lament (over those that have attempted to unite actual Pure Land practice

with Zen). While Hakuin's answer to the original question is clear, his method

of arriving at his conclusion is somewhat convoluted and filled with

misunderstandings regarding true nembutsu doctrine.

1 I swear that I have read such a statement in Matsunga's Foundations of JapaneseBuddhism, but I cannot find it for the life of me.

12

Ferguson

In close, Hakuin dismisses the Pure Land sects as being suitable only

for lesser individuals and their lesser goals. However, one may argue that to

cultivate the True Faith that Shinran seeks is a difficult endeavor – that to

truly put all of one's faith and trust into something rather unverifiable

constitutes quite a brave act through the selfless suspension of will and effort.

While it may seem foolish for a merchant to act as a samurai, how foolish is it

for a samurai to act like a Buddha?

13

Ferguson

Works Cited

Bloom, Alfred. Shinran’s Gospel of Pure Grace. University of Arizona Press:

1965.

Dobbins, James C. J ōdo Shinshū: Shin Buddhism in Medieval Japan . Indiana

University Press: 1989.

Hakuin. “Orategama Zokushū.” The Zen Master Hakuin: Selected Writings.

Trans. Philip B. Yampolsky. Columbia University Press, 1971.

14