Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Master Sheng Yen’s Pure Land Teachings: Synthesizing the Traditional and the Modern

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Master Sheng Yen’s Pure Land Teachings: Synthesizing the Traditional and the Modern

Charles B. Jones

Associate Professor, School of Theology and Religious Studies, Catholic University, U.S.A.


▎ Abstract


In the history of the Chinese Pure Land Buddhist tradition, many thinkers have given much consideration to the two interrelated questions of the nature of the Pure Land and the meaning of rebirth within it. In the premodern period, two ideas predominated and frequently clashed. The first was the position of “western-direction” or “other-direction pure land” (xīfang / tāfāng jìngtǔ 西方 / 他方淨土 ), in which the practitioner sought rebirth in an existent Pure Land to the west of the present world. The second was “mind-only pure land” (wéixīn jìngtǔ 唯心淨土 ), in which the Pure Land was coextensive with this world and manifested when the practitioner’s mind was purified enough to see it. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, another way of thinking about the Pure Land emerged as part of the movement commonly referred to as “Humanistic Buddhism” (rénjiān fójiào 人間佛教 ). Known as “The Pure Land in the Human Realm” (rénjiān jìngtǔ 人間淨土 ), it sought to engage practitioners in environmental and social welfare work in order to alleviate suffering and improve lives in the present world.

While these developments are most often credited to the monk-reformer Taixu (Tàixū 太虛, 1890-1947), an examination of his works reveals him as an ambiguous modernizer, mixing the traditional and the modern in an unsystematic manner. Ven.

‧218‧聖嚴研究


Dr. Sheng Yen (Shèngyán 聖嚴 , 1930-2009), often seen as a carrier of the tradition of Humanistic Buddhism, took a more synthetic and modern approach to Pure Land. In his mature view, the previous positions of “western-direction” and “mindonly” Pure Land are neither incompatible with each other nor with the modern concept of “Pure Land in the Human Realm.” Indeed, they may be seen as stages in a path. As he puts it, the Pure Land path can start from a relatively simple practice such as oral invocation of the name of Amitābha and lead to a realization of one’s own mind in the practice of “Buddhainvocation Chan” (niànfó chán 念佛禪 ), with the ultimate goal of realizing both the wisdom and compassion of a bodhisattva through the twin practices of realizing the Pure Land as one’s own mind while simultaneously establishing the Pure Land in the Human Realm. In this presentation I hope to contextualize Ven. Dr. Sheng Yen’s Pure Land teachings in the overall history of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism and enable readers to see his innovative way of reconciling seemingly incompatible approaches. Key words: S heng Yen, Taixu, Pure Land, Pure Land in the Human Realm, Humanistic Buddhism


1. Introduction


Pure Land Buddhism as a “tradition of practice” which taught that ordinary, non-elite Buddhists could achieve rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land, called Sukhāvatī, and thereby attain the stage of non-retrogression (bù tuìzhuǎn 不退轉 ). Within the scope of the tradition so defined, I include both its practices and the theoretical and exegetical explanations by which it understood how these practices worked. According to these explanations, the “other-power” (tālì他力) of the fundamental vows (běnyuàn本願) of Amitābha supplemented the practitioner’s “self-power” (zìlì 自 力 ). Because of this support, the practice of nianfo (niànfó 念佛 ), even when simplified to the mere oral recitation of this Buddha’s name, enabled ordinary persons to achieve a religious goal greatly disproportionate to their own abilities and efforts. This idea provoked opposition from the very outset. While some Buddhist authorities found the explanations and exegeses persuasive, others contested them, sure that only bodhisattvas with eons of practice already behind them could attain even the ability to perceive a purified Buddha-land, much less gain rebirth within one. In order to meet this challenge, advocates of the Pure Land tradition produced a steady stream of theoretical and apologetic works. ‧220‧聖嚴研究


Early authors differed in some of the details regarding the level of accomplishment that would lead to rebirth in one or another Pure Land, but they may be sorted into three broad schools of thought. One taught that the land of Sukhāvatī was a Transformation-Land (huàtǔ 化土 ) into which ordinary beings could be born. Another held that it was purely a Reward-Land (bàotǔ 報土 ) accessible only to advanced bodhisattvas. A third maintained that the land that practitioners perceived or were born into corresponded to the relative purity of their minds, and so could be either a RewardLand or a Transformation-Land. In other words, the more one had progressed in mind-purification, the more subtle and refined the manifestation of the Pure Land would be. While an advanced bodhisattva could contemplate the Pure Land in a high degree of refinement, he could also see how it appeared to those at lower levels of attainment. The reverse was not true; those at a lower level could only see what their stage on the path enabled them to see and no higher.


According to the pioneering overview of Chinese Pure Land doctrine by Mochizuki Shinkō望月信亨, it was Shandao (Shàndǎo 善導 , 613-681) who first proposed that devotees of Amitābha could gain rebirth in a manifestation of the Pure Land higher than that which their progress should have earned. He held that the Pure Land was a Reward-Land because the Buddha Amitābha, while still at the beginning of his practice as the bodhisattvamonk Dharmākara, had made vows that specified the form that his Pure Land would take after he became a buddha. Thus, the land manifested in the way that served to reward his effort and not theirs, and would be perceived as such by any being who entered it. 2 Following this innovation, the question that became most controversial was: Do ordinary beings attain rebirth in the Pure Land even if they have no practical or moral attainment? Or does rebirth in the Pure Land, like any other form of rebirth, depend upon one’s own karma and accomplishments?


Once Shandao’s ideas gained popularity and people began to practice in the expectation of rebirth in Amitābha’s RewardLand, other voices began to raise objections. In the most general terms, the debate shifted from a discussion of the way the Pure Land manifested as a land of Suchness, Reward, or Transformation to whether the Pure Land really existed to the west (“westerndirection” or “other-direction pure land”; xīfāng/tāfāng jìngtǔ 西方 / 他方淨土 ) or as a manifestation of the practitioner’s mind (“mind-only pure land”; wéixīn jìngtǔ 唯心淨土 ). The first view aligned with the teaching that even lowly or evil people could attain rebirth and non-retrogression because the power of Amitābha’s

vows would bring it about, while the second accorded more with the position that the appearance of the Pure Land depended upon the practitioner purifying his or her mind.

These two positions dominated Pure Land apologetic discourse for the next thousand years and more. In the late Ming dynasty, authors such as Yuan Hongdao (Yuán Hóngdào 袁宏道 , 1568-1610) and Yunqi Zhuhong (Yúnqī Zhūhóng 雲棲袾宏 , 1535-1615) were still responding to such objections in their works Comprehensive Treatise on the West (Xīfāng hélùn 西方合論 , T.1976) and Answers to 48 Questions about the Pure Land (Dá jìngtǔ sìshíbā wèn 答淨土四十八問 ) respectively. Even as late as the early Republican period, Yinguang (Yìnguāng 印光 , 1861-1940) dealt with this issue in his Treatise Resolving Doubts About the Pure Land (Jìngtǔ juéyí lùn 淨土決疑論 ). 3 However, at the same time that Yinguang published his piece defending a very traditional version of Pure Land teaching, new currents were stirring in Chinese Buddhism under the names “Buddhism for Human Life” (rénshēng fójiào 人生佛教 ) or “Humanistic Buddhism” (rénjiān fójiào 人間佛教 ). These modernizing tendencies provided a new framework for thinking about the Pure Land.


2. Taixu and the Pure Land in the Human Realm


More than anyone else, the monk-reformer Taixu (Tàixū 太虛 , 1890-1947) receives recognition for the inception of these new movements. While the two terms just mentioned are virtually interchangeable, their different wording evokes two concerns. The first, “Buddhism for Human Life,” points to a concern that Buddhist clergy were too involved in funerals and rituals for the dead and needed to focus on the needs of the living, while the latter, “Humanistic Buddhism” (or more literally, “Buddhism in the


3 Yinguang 印光 1991. See Jones translation (2012), p. 33, 43. ‧222‧聖嚴研究 ‧223‧

Human Realm”) implicitly criticized excessive attention to otherworldly buddhas, bodhisattvas, and deities and the lack of attention to problems of the present world. 4 One outgrowth of this reform was a novel way of approaching Pure Land Buddhism that went beyond the dichotomy “western-direction” and “mind-only.” This is the vision of the “Pure Land in the Human Realm” (rénjiān jìngtǔ 人間淨土 ). This term has been used by many of Taixu’s successors to indicate a move away from “other-worldly” (chūshì 出世 ) objects of worship and postmortem fortunes and toward “this-worldly” (rùshì 入世 ) efforts to improve living conditions. It is a slogan that one frequently sees posted in monasteries and temples that engage in social welfare work and pursue their practices in environmentally-friendly ways (see photo). It is also a rallying-cry for monastic and lay Buddhist movements pursuing such issues as


Kumarajiva Temple ( 鳩摩羅什寺 ), Wuwei ( 武威 ), Gansu Province ( 甘肅省 )

environmental protection, social justice, women’s rights, public health, economic justice, and so on. However, Taixu’s position on the Pure Land in the Human Realm is much more complicated than this, and presents the reader with an idiosyncratic mixture of the modern and the traditional, the progressive and the reactionary. Let us take a quick look at his essay “On the Establishment of the Pure Land in the Human Realm” (Jiànshè rénjiān jìngtǔ lùn” 建設人間 淨土論 ). 5

There are certainly places within this long essay in which Taixu speaks very plainly about establishing a Pure Land in the present world through social and political reform, as in the following passage:

One may also practice the ten virtues as one’s [main] activity, pass it on to others to transform the masses, expound virtue and ceremony, reform vulgar customs, work to end war and punishments, provide for the people’s livelihoods, help the young and give peace to the aged, recover waste and bring comfort to the lonely. You could bring stability to the laboring and capitalist classes by ending corruption and think of ways to bring peace between nations. This is how one might create the Pure Land in the Human Realm by improving the human condition through safeguarding the security of life and property. 6 Such sentiments also dominate the final section of this essay,


5 Don A. Pittman provides a lengthy English summary of this essay in his 2001 monograph on Taixu. However, he emphasizes Taixu as a modernizer and entirely omits the parts of this essay that are ambiguous or clearly traditional. Apart from a brief mention of rebirth in Uttarakuru, the summary focuses only on Taixu’s call for social reform efforts and the establishment of a utopian Buddhist community and ignores all else. See Pittman 2001, pp. 221-229. 6 Taixu 1956, p. 24: 398. ‧224‧聖嚴研究 ‧225‧

called “Creating the Pure Land in the Human Realm” (Chuàngzào rénjiān jìngtǔ 刱造人間淨土 ). In addition to this, however, the essay contains many other thoughts on how a human pure land might be gained that display a mixture of premodern and modern concepts. For example, in two places he uses modern astronomy’s revelation of the actual vastness of the universe and the possibility of other planets to demonstrate that there could very well be pure lands lying a great distance from the Earth. Within this modern cosmological picture he also discusses the possibility of gaining a human pure land by performing practices aimed at rebirth in the paradisiacal northern continent of Uttarakuru. He clearly believes that this land exists, and places it somewhere within the solar system rather than to the north of Mount Sumeru, and he encourages people to practice the ten virtues (shíshàn 十善 ) as a way of gaining rebirth there in a future life.


Taixu writes, “Although the Pure Land in the Human Realm encompasses all of humanity, it must still be established in a concrete way to be manifest, in particular to make a sufficient material impression.” 7 Therefore, the essay includes a long section that lays out a plan to found the Pure Land in the Human Realm by purchasing mountain property with government assistance and constructing a utopian Buddhist community upon it. 8 Taixu envisioned a central shrine surrounded by buildings in which the eight schools of Chinese Buddhism would pursue their special brands of study and practice. Further down the mountain, lay Buddhists would be allocated tracts of land to cultivate according to their level of precepts. Those who practiced the ten virtues would have the most land and live closest to the monastic

Justin Ritzinger points out that utopianism had been one of the hallmarks of Taixu’s thought since his early days as an anarchist. See Ritzinger 2017, pp. 11-12.


cloister, those who had received the five lay precepts would live a bit farther from the clerics and have smaller plots, while those who had received only the three refuges would be still further down and be furnished with the smallest tracts. The two halls for nuns would provide only for the study of Vinaya and the practice of Pure Land. While this is certainly a concrete expression of the desire to establish something in the present world, it is not a call for societywide social action. In fact, the primary way in which this utopian community would benefit the world and help to “safeguard life and property” ( bǎochí shēnmìng zīchǎn zhī ānquán 保持身命資產之安全 ) would be by holding prayer services and conducting esoteric rituals for the protection of the nation and the benefit of the world.


Taixu did more than just leave the door open in this and other essays for traditional Pure Land practice; his exposition on attaining rebirth in a Buddhist paradise occupies much more space in this essay than any other topic. Noting that even the successful establishment of the Pure Land here and now benefits people only during their lifetimes, he devoted a great deal of space and provided very long sutra citations to detail the practices and benefits of rebirth in pure realms. While this includes Amitābha’s land of Sukhāvatī, it also includes the aspiration for rebirth with the bodhisattva Maitreya in the Inner Court of the Tuṣita Heaven or with other buddhas in other buddha-lands.

This is important, because it helps us understand Taixu as an ambiguous modernizer. This may help us understand the fact that his next-generation followers put forward very different views 9 According to Li Mingyou 李明友 , Taixu thought that the aspiration to rebirth in the Tuṣita Heaven was better, since Maitreya was to attain rebirth during his next life here on Earth and then create the Pure Land here, thus establishing a true Pure Land in the Human Realm. See Li n.d. Taixu’s student Yinshun followed in this line of thought; see Yinshun 1992, pp. 16-17, 30-31. This is also the major contention of Ritzinger 2017. ‧226‧聖嚴研究 ‧227‧


on Pure Land. Some actively denigrated Pure Land practices, as Yinshun (Yìnshùn 印順 , 1906-2005) did in his book Jìngtǔchán 淨土與禪 (Pure Land and Chan), in which he compared the Pure Land to a Marxist paradise 10 and cast Pure Land as a debased practice. 11 Others, such as the Taiwan nun Zhengyan (Zhèngyán 證嚴 , 1937-), chose to focus on charitable, medical, and rescue work in this world and simply did not emphasize Pure Land. Neither of these figures completely followed Taixu’s example of providing for a modernist reading of the Pure Land in the Human Realm while leaving the door open to traditional practices, giving the strong impression that the Pure Land in the Human Realm was incompatible with traditional Pure Land and rendered it obsolete. One latter-day heir of Taixu who did embrace both ends of this dichotomy was Sheng Yen (Shèngyán 聖嚴 , 1930-2009).


3. Sheng Yen’s Synthesis


Ven. Sheng Yen has written several theoretical and pastoral works on Pure Land. Here we will look first at a 1983 article published in the Huagang Buddhist Studies Bulletin (Huagang foxue xuebao 華岡佛學學報 ) for his early theoretical viewpoint, and for his pastoral perspective, I will focus on a posthumous book edited from his dharma-talks, Master Sheng Yen Teaches the Pure Land Dharma-Gate (Shengyan fashi jiao jingtu famen 聖嚴法師教淨土法門 ). In the “Introduction” to his article “An Examination of Pure Land Thought” (“Jingtu sixiang zhi kaocha” 淨土思想之考察 ), Sheng Yen says that two factors encouraged him to write this extended essay. The first was a general lack of knowledge among Buddhist practitioners, and the second was a controversy that had

Jones 1999, pp. 126-131.

recently flared up in Taiwan over the terms “rebirth [in the Pure Land] bearing karma” (dàiyè wǎngshēng 帶業往生 ) and “rebirth [in the Pure Land] extinguishing karma” (xiāoyè wǎngshēng 消業往生 ). 12 As explained by Wang Jingsi 王靖絲 , the controversy was sparked by a Buddhist lay practitioner named Chen Jianmin ( 陳健民 , 1906-1987). A dedicated meditator and practitioner of Tibetan Buddhist esoteric ritual, Chen took offense at the idea that any Buddhist could attain rebirth in the Pure Land still carrying evil karma. Without going too deeply into his arguments, he expressed the fear that this notion would discourage people from engaging in difficult practices or amending their morality. Indeed, he guessed that because of this belief, 80-90% of Pure Land practitioners did not cultivate merit, were not vegetarian, and had not given up killing. They did not read other sutras or cultivate the nianfo samadhi. When he was attacked for expressing this view, he assembled some of his more educated followers and had them study Buddhist scriptures and prepare a report on the idea of “rebirth bearing karma.” In 1981 they issued the Report of the Study Group on “Rebirth Bearing Karma” in the Sutras (‘Dàiyè wǎngshēng’ chájīng xiǎozǔ bàogàoshū「帶業往生」查經小組報告書 ). The report found the term “rebirth bearing karma” was not in any sutra, and only appeared in late Chinese Buddhist literature. Even then it did not normally entail the view that one ought to depend solely upon the power of the Buddha Amitābha to eradicate all one’s past karma, and was often interchangeable with “rebirth extinguishing karma.” 13


Pure Land traditionalists in Taiwan attacked Chen’s position vehemently with a barrage of articles and lectures. Again, we need not spend time detailing their counterarguments. The controversy See Wang 2010, pp. 81-86 for a detailed account of Chen’s position and publications and an analysis of the merits of his positions. ‧228‧聖嚴研究 ‧


did not last long because Chen Jianmin himself had little interest in participating in it. He spent very little time answering his critics, and with his death in 1987 the polemics came to a close. After the mid-1980s discussion of the issue became more conciliatory, analytical, and scholarly. As cooler voices took over, it was found that both sides had some degree of scriptural support and were not necessarily mutually exclusive. 14 This is the point at which Sheng Yen entered the fray, and his contributions to the discussion helped define his own ideas about karma and rebirth in Sukhāvatī. This debate may have interested him because the issues involved were as much ethical as theoretical. Chen Jianmin had expressed the fear that the “rebirth bearing karma” position was not only wrong, but would lead people to flout the norms of Buddhist morality and become lax in spiritual cultivation. Sheng Yen’s challenge here was to maintain some room for the “rebirth bearing karma” position while neutralizing the prospect of antinomianism.

In this lengthy article, Sheng Yen does more than just weigh in on this controversy, however. In accordance with his concern that ordinary Buddhists lacked knowledge about the Pure Land tradition, he wrote it to provide a general outline of Chinese Pure Land thought along with an overview of its scriptural bases. Since it is not within the scope of this article to outline everything he says in it, I will focus on two issues that have a bearing on Sheng Yen’s view of Pure Land in the modern world. First, we will see how he defines “The Pure Land in the Human Realm,” and then we will see the kind of life and practice that he believed would be appropriate for Buddhists in the modern world.

Sheng Yen, like Taixu before him, set forth a much wider range of meaning for the term renjian jingtu than contemporary readers might expect. Sheng Yen begins his typology of pure lands by noting that the term refers to any land created by the power of a buddha’s vows. This means that there are innumerable pure lands in

all directions. He then notes that the tradition describes pure lands in three ways: (1) lands in other directions (tāfāng shìjiè 他方世界), (2) the present world (xiànqián shìjiè 現前世界 ), and (3) the land within one’s own mind (zìxīn shìjiè 自心世界 ). 15 All three can be the setting for the Pure Land in the Human Realm. For instance, the Pure Land of Akṣobhya (Āchùpófó 阿閦婆佛 ) to the east is very simple and closely resembles a Pure Land in the Human Realm in that it has both women and childbirth. However, there is no [[[Wikipedia:sexual|sexual]]] desire, birth is painless, and women do not menstruate. As long as the scriptures state that humans number among its inhabitants, then it is part of the human realm.


Under the second heading, the Pure Land in the present world, Sheng Yen gives two cases. The first is the present human world during the time of Śākyamuni’s teaching, and the second is this world in the future when Maitreya takes birth and achieves buddhahood here. 16 In the first case, Sheng Yen does not claim that this world became a Pure Land with the enlightenment of Śākyamuni. He merely claims that since Śākyamuni taught the ten virtues, the practice of which can move a world into the direction of purity, he showed this world’s potential for purification. Sheng Yen believed that the practice of the ten virtues would accelerate as time goes on, and this, along with the rise of new technologies will create a land much like Uttarakuru. Maitreya will descend into and further purify the present human realm when he preaches and awakens billions of beings. Here Sheng Yen echoes Taixu’s “On the Establishment of the Pure Land in the Human Realm” very closely.


Sheng Yen’s third category reflects the traditional notion of “mind-only pure land.” In this essay, he does not give much detail on this manifestation of the Pure Land, only saying that if one can bring one’s practice to completion and purify mind and body, then

‧230‧聖嚴研究


the Pure Land manifests before one’s eyes no matter where one is. When the mind is free of delusions and unmoved by defilements, then it is pure, as is the body. When body and mind are pure, then the land will also be pure, because suffering and bliss, purity and impurity, all emerge from the mind. 17 If one cannot manage this, then one “goes to plan B” (tuì ér qiú qícì 退而求其次 ) and generates the aspiration to avail one’s self of the other-power of the Buddha and practice the ten virtues in order to take rebirth in a buddha-land. 18 Sheng Yen says more about the Pure Land in the Human Realm as a manifestation of the mind in his 1997 book Nianfo sheng jingtu 念佛生淨土 . He begins his discussion of the Pure Land in the Human Realm with a definition: “The meaning of the Pure Land in the Human Realm indicates that the present world in which we actually live is the Pure Land” ( 人間淨土的意思,是指我們現實生活環境,就是淨土 ). 19 He goes on to explain the mindonly aspect of his view. Buddhist scriptures denigrate the present world as the “Sahā world” with its five turbidities. However, once one puts the buddha-dharma into practice and attains awakening, then the Pure Land unfolds before one’s eyes here and now. If one person attains awakening, then it is a pure land for one person. If two people attain awakening, then it is a pure land for two people, and so on. 20 In terms of ethics, Sheng Yen notes that while the controversy over “rebirth bearing karma” and “rebirth extinguishing karma” impelled him to write this essay, he deems it a false dichotomy and leaves the topic quickly. 21 However, toward the end of the essay he returns to it briefly in his discussion of the meaning of

the terms “path of difficult practice” and “path of easy practice.” Here Sheng Yen acknowledges that the “path of difficult practice” is beyond the capacity of almost all beings. Knowing this, buddhas create pure lands as places for sentient beings to come, receive instruction, attain the state of non-retrogression, and eventually achieve buddhahood. 22


Even if one rides on the Buddha’s vow-power to rebirth, some level of self-effort remains necessary. Sheng Yen reminds his readers that the Contemplation Sutra (Guan Wuliangshou fo jing 觀無量壽佛經 , T.365) requires one to practice the three types of merit (sānfú 三福 ) and generate bodhicitta in order to qualify for rebirth. 23 Furthermore, the Amitābha Sutra (Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 , T.366) declares that one does not achieve rebirth on the basis of “scant roots of virtue and merit.” 24 He concludes his essay by telling his readers that even the “path of easy practice” requires Buddhists to put forth effort. He ends this essay with the following:

Therefore, the Pure Land sutras, even while advocating the path of easy practice, also emphasize cultivation of the path of liberation and the importance of the bodhisattva path. Moreover, all Buddhist teachings take the way of virtue as their basis. Therefore, everyone who aspires to rebirth in the pure lands of the buddhas must also marshal the resources of good fortune and virtue to achieve rebirth. 25 The other work I wish to examine in detail, Master Sheng Yen Teaches the Pure Land Dharma-Gate, brings together transcripts from talks given during a seven-day Buddha-recitation retreat (fóqī 佛七 ), and presents his pastoral recommendations for incorporating

‧232‧聖嚴研究 ‧233‧ Pure Land practice into one’s life. On reading these transcripts, one notices that he follows Taixu in adopting an eclectic approach that excludes nothing. Far from using the idea of the Pure Land in the Human Realm to supersede traditional ideas and practices from the past, he finds ways to fit all these elements together: nianfo to gain rebirth in Sukhāvatī through reliance on the power of Amitābha’s vows, efforts in self-cultivation in order to make as much personal progress as possible, affirmation that the Pure Land is a manifestation of the mind, and attention to benevolent work in the present world in order to create a pure land here and now. In addition, while Taixu moved from one of these elements to another seemingly at random, Sheng Yen attempts to synthesize them into a coherent whole. In many ways, this book is more systematic than his 1983 article.

Sheng Yen begins by stating that there is no inherent conflict between traditional “western-direction pure landthought and the “Pure Land in the Human Realm.” 26 This is because the practice of Humanistic Buddhism (rénjiān fójiào 人間佛教 ) does not contradict or conflict with the aspiration for rebirth in Amitābha’s land; in fact, it prepares one for rebirth. 27 In asserting this, Sheng Yen implicitly repudiates prior critics who held that the wish to attain rebirth in the Pure Land is “other-worldly” and arises from loss of all hope for this world. 28 In contrast, he states that all Mahayana Buddhists ought to generate bodhicitta, by which they declare their desire to save all other beings in this world. When one has this attitude, then one accords with the vows set forth by all buddhas, of which Amitābha’s 48 vows serve as an example.

 This criticism goes back to the beginning of Pure Land apologetic literature. For example, “Zhiyi” addresses this objection in his Jìngtǔ shíyú lùn 淨土十疑論 (T.1961). That it persists up to modern times is shown by Jiang Canteng 江燦騰 in Jiang 1989, p. 208.

Normatively, one should vow both to bring about the Pure Land in the Human Realm by assisting living beings in the present world and seek rebirth in Sukhāvatī after death. In this way, one gains a higher rebirth in the Pure Land, becomes a buddha sooner, and can go about aiding other beings. 29 Later, Sheng Yen states that the Pure Land is not inherently other-worldly and escapist; to the contrary, escapism and passivity toward the problems of the world are signs of an unbalanced understanding of Pure Land. 30

While thus denying any conflict between a traditional “westerndirection” idea of the Pure Land and social action in the present world, Sheng Yen also sought to harmonize the more traditional dichotomy between “western-direction” and “mind-onlyPure Land. In the course of counseling retreatants to engage in all the traditional Buddhist methods of self-cultivation, Sheng Yen mentions that, in keeping with the principle of mind-only (wéixīn 唯心 ), every pure land is only as pure as the mind experiencing it. To a buddha, even the present defiled world presents itself as utterly pure. 31 The Pure Land is a kind of “one-room schoolhouse” in which students of all grades inhabit the same space but only receive such instruction as their prior experience has prepared them. This does not falsify the “western-direction” concept; if that is what a given being is ready to receive, then it will be given and will be as real as any other experience to an unenlightened mind. Nevertheless, even such beings will be in the Pure Land and will attain buddhahood without fail. Sheng Yen goes so far as to look beyond the fourfold typology of pure lands presented by the Tiantai School (Tiāntái zōng 天台宗 ) and the nine grades of rebirth found in the Contemplation Sutra (Guan wuliangshoufo jing 觀無量壽佛經 , T.365) to speculate that there may be as many pure lands as

‧234‧聖嚴研究 ‧235‧ there are minds.

Sheng Yen also systematically relates mind-only pure land with the call for social action to create a pure land in the present human world. To begin with, he downplays the value of a strict “mind-only” position by saying that if purification of one’s own mind were the way to establish a pure land here and now, then only those who have so purified their minds would be able to perceive and dwell in it; all others would be left out. Should we then try to establish a pure land within the family or in a given territory? Perhaps, he says; since the Buddha seemed to think this present world was the best place for practice, then it would be worth a try. 33 The founding of Dharma Drum Mountain represents his attempt at this. While at first glance it might seem as though Sheng Yen is carrying out Taixu’s plan for an ideal Buddhist community on a mountain, Sheng Yen’s rationale is more modest and practical. In remarks given at a 1997 conference, he described three main goals that, if accomplished, would go some distance in establishing Dharma Drum Mountain as a Pure Land in the Human Realm: He planned for several educational institutions on the property that would teach religion and the humanities to help both Buddhism and society. He planned an office to organize outreach and publication efforts for the uplift of society.

He would also make provisions to educate the general population in social concern and social work. 34 To summarize, Sheng Yen goes beyond Taixu’s rather eclectic conception of the Pure Land in the Human Realm to present a more concise and coherent scheme. Taixu moved indiscriminately

among such ideas as rebirth in Uttarakuru, 35 rebirth in the Inner Court of the Tuṣita Heaven and subsequent presence when Maitreya attains buddhahood in this world, the purchase of land and the construction of a Buddhist utopia with government support, social action to benefit human beings here and now, and rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha or of other Buddhas. Sheng Yen, by contrast, omitted many of these ideas (e.g., rebirth in Uttarakuru and government-sponsored Buddhist utopias do not figure in his writings as live options), and took the three elements of Pure Land previously assumed to be mutually inconsistent and brought them together. “Western-direction,” “mind-only,” and “the Pure Land in the Human Realm” do not contradict one another; in fact, all three are needed. In isolation, the search for rebirth in Sukhāvatī would be escapist and other-worldly, “mind-only” would benefit only the one whose mind has been purified, and the search to construct a Pure Land in the Human Realm without aspirations for rebirth and mental purification would be just another form of clinging. All three forms of Pure Land have their place even within the life and practice of an individual devotee.


A religious life along these lines would look like this: After accepting Buddhism and generating the resolve of bodhicitta, the Mahayana practitioner would undertake the full panoply of Buddhist practices: precepts, meditation, compassionate work, and nianfo. In this way, he or she would help to realize the Pure Land in the Human Realm. However, since death still comes for one and all, the practitioner would eventually die. When that happens, their diligent practice of nianfo and their compassionate activities would lead them to rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land in the west, and they would experience it at the level of purity consistent with the extent to which their earthly practices had purified their minds. 35 In another work, Sheng Yen does mention Uttarakuru as a kind of Pure Land in the Human Realm, but says that “regrettably there is currently no conveyance to transport us there.” See Sheng Yen 2003, p. 23.


‧236‧聖嚴研究 ‧237‧ If their practices had been inferior, they would see an inferior kind of Pure Land and take a long time to achieve buddhahood. If their practices were superior, they would see a better sort of Pure Land and achieve buddhahood sooner. In no instance, however, would any practitioner not be received into the Pure Land and be caught once again in the trap of samsara. I should note in closing that Sheng Yen’s Pure Land teaching is far more complicated than this. He also took all of the intellectual components of the tradition and attempted to put them all together in a consistent way. A presentation of his intellectual framework for Pure Land will have to wait for another time, however.


4. Conclusion


As we have seen, Pure Land thought and practice in China has endured for many centuries and undergone many transformations. As soon as it developed the idea that non-elite practitioners or even evil people could attain rebirth in the Pure Land and become buddhas (even if it took eons), objections arose to what appeared mere “cheap grace.” Prior to the late 19th century, the primary contenders in the debate were the positions of “western-direction pure land” and “mind-only pure land.” Since both of these positions rested on conceptual frameworks that comported poorly with modern scientific thought (or so many held), reformers such as Taixu asserted the novel concept of the Pure Land in the Human Realm as part of a larger program of refashioning Buddhism for the modern world.

Many observers with cursory familiarity with these trends have taken these three positions to be mutually exclusive. Certainly throughout history thinkers have advocated one to the detriment of the other and tried to persuade others to do likewise. However, some modern reformers, including Taixu himself, never adopted one given position while condemning the others. Taixu and Sheng Yen are part of another tradition within Pure Land, one that seeks to harmonize competing positions into an overall framework in which each has its place. Taixu may have moved haphazardly from one conception of the Pure Land in the Human Realm to another without establishing logical connections, but Sheng Yen managed to create a harmonious picture of a Pure Land tradition of thought and practice that could encompass and systematize all previous elements. His conception is able to appeal to a diverse audience and give them all something to work with and to hope for. 


‧238‧聖嚴研究 ‧239‧
Bibliography
Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 , T.366.
Fo shuo guan wuliangshoufo jing 佛說觀無量壽佛經 , T.365.
Jiang Canteng 江燦騰 . 1989. Renjian jingtu de zhuixun 人間淨土的追尋 (The Pursuit of the Pure Land in the Human Realm). Taipei:
Daoxiang 稻鄉出版社 .
Jingtu shiyu lun 淨土十疑論 , T.1961.
Jones, Charles B. 1999. Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State, 1660-1990. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Li Mingyou 李明友 . “Taixu fashi de renjian jingtu lun” 太虛法師的人間淨土論 (“Ven. Taixu’s Humanistic Pure Land”). http://hk.plm.org.cn/ gnews/2009128/2009128101550.html, accessed November 28, 2015. Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 . 1942. Chūgoku jōdo kyōri shi 中国净土教理史 . Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法藏館 .
Pittman, Don. A. 2001. Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu’s Reforms. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Ritzinger, Justin R. 2017. Anarchy in the Pure Land: Reinventing the Cult of Maitreya in Modern Chinese Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sheng Yen 聖嚴 . 1983. “Jingtu sixiang zhi kaocha” 淨土思想之考察
(“An examination of Pure Land thought”), in Huagang foxue xuebao 華岡佛學學報 , 6, p. 5-48.
Sheng Yen 聖嚴 . 1997. Nianfo sheng jingtu 念佛生淨土 (Nianfo and
Rebirth in the Pure Land). Foxue rumen 佛學入門 , 9. Taipei: Dharma Drum 法鼓文化 .
Sheng Yen 聖嚴 . 2003. Jingtu zai renjian 淨土在人間 (The Pure Land is in the Human Realm). Taipei: Dharma Drum 法鼓文化 .
Sheng Yen 聖嚴 . 2010. Shengyan fashi jiao jingtu famen 聖嚴法師教淨土法門 (Master Sheng Yen Teaches the Pure Land Dharma-Gate). Comp. and ed. Guoxian 果賢 . Sheng Yen shuyuan 聖嚴書院 , 5.
Taipei: Dharma Drum 法鼓文化 .
Taixu 太虛 . 1956. “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun” 建設人間淨土論 (“On the Establishment of the Pure Land in the Human Realm”), in Taixu dashi quanshu Taipei: Shandao Temple Sutra Distribution Center 善導寺佛經流通處 , 1956, p. 24:349-430.
Wang Jingsi 王靖絲 . 2010. 析論聖嚴法師「帶業、消業都生淨土」之詮解 . 中華佛學研究 Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies, no. 11, pp. 77-
110.
Yinguang 印光 . 1991. “Jingtu jueyi lun” 淨土決疑論 (“Treatise Resolving Doubts About the Pure Land”), in Yinguang Dashi quanji 印光大師全集 (Collected Works of Great Master Yinguang), ed. Shi Guangding 釋廣定 . Taipei: Fojiao chubanshe 佛教出版社 , p. 1: 357-371.
Yinguang 印光 .2012. “Treatise Resolving Doubts About the Pure Land
(Jingtu jueyi lun 淨土決疑論 ) by Master Yinguang 印光 (1861–
1947).” trans. Charles B. Jones. Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies. 3rd series, no. 14, pp. 27-61.
Yinshun 印順 . 1992. “Jingtu xinlun” 淨土新論 (“A New Discourse on the Pure Land”), in Jingtu yu chan 淨土與禪 (Pure Land and Chan).
Rev. ed. Taipei: Zhengwen 正聞 , pp. 1-75.
Yuan Hongdao 袁宏道 . Xifang helun 西方合論 , T.1976.
Yunqi Zhuhong 雲棲袾宏 . Da jingtu sishiba wen 答淨土四十八問 . XZJ
108: 383-399.
‧240‧聖嚴研究 ‧241‧
聖嚴法師的淨土思想:綜合傳統與現代的教門
周文廣
美國天主教大學神學與宗教研究學院副教授
▎摘要
中國淨土宗傳統以來,很多宗師大德對於淨土的本質,以及往生極樂世界的意義二者之間的關聯,早已多方討論。一直到現代之前,兩個主導的觀念一直互相衝擊:其一是「西方 ∕他方淨土」的觀念,修行者希冀往生後投生於位居現世西方的淨土;第二的「唯心淨土」,則認為淨土和現世共存,當修行者心淨到某一程度時,就可在現世見到淨土。十九世紀末,二十世紀初,開始了另一思維,開展出人間佛教的運動。人間淨土鼓勵修行人積極投入環境或社會福利工作,來拔苦而提昇現世生活。
一般都認為此運動由太虛大師(1890-1947)領導,然而太虛大師的著作,則顯示他所謂初步的現代化,就是把傳統與現代二者,不太有系統性地雜混一起。而一般認為是聖嚴法師(1930-2009)把淨土法門系統性地現代化,發揚實踐人間佛教的傳承。在他成熟的見解裡,不但原先格格不入的西方淨土與唯心淨土不再起衝突,甚至與現代的人間淨土觀念都很和諧。誠然,我們可以把此現象視為現代化的不同階段。聖嚴法師曾說過淨土法門可以從較簡單的練習,例如念佛名號開始,接下來以念佛禪來明心見性,最後要了知淨土即自心,同時在人間建立淨土,以此雙修,來證得菩薩的慈悲與智慧。我希望此文由中國淨土佛教的脈絡裡,來看聖嚴師父的淨土法門,向與會大眾闡述聖嚴師父如何創新地融合狀似不相容的法門。
關鍵詞:聖嚴、太虛、淨土宗、人間淨土、人間佛教
 



Source