October 1, 2007
Ray, of the blog Dharmakara’s Prayer and an Amida Order member, recently sent me a copy of his teacher’s new book Who Loves Dies Well. I’ve corresponded with Ray in the past, for quite a number of years, and in that dialogue have often raised certain anxieties about the Amida Order and the teaching of Dharmavidya (David Brazier). I have never doubted the sincerity of Dharmavidya; this is perfectly evident in the community which he has helped to create. However I must confess that I have often felt a certain discomfort at the way in which Dharmavidya has drawn from and mixed together a great variety of Buddhist and non-Buddhist practices and teachings. I am a firm believer that the transmission of any teaching across cultures is a delicate matter and it is well to study and participate as deeply, exclusively and traditionally as is practicable to begin with. Therefore when Dharmavidya’s focus began to lean gradually more and more towards Pure Land Buddhism I admit to feeling grave doubts as to what would emerge.
Reading Who Loves Dies Well I have been humbled to recognise, in Dharmavidya’s own words and story, the same faith that I have imbibed from a more structured and traditional source. Of course I should not be surprised, such is the clarity and human relevance of the Pure Land teaching. In fact I think that my main criticism of the book - if I am to make one - is that I rather wish that Dharmavidya would have been a little more courageous in trusting his own expression rather than utilising Japanese terminology. Anyway, in particular I was pleased to note that just as in the Jodo Shin Pure Land tradition, from which I draw guidance, Dharmavidya highlights important points such as the difference between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of (religious) life (p.15), the negative or ’shadow’ aspect of Shakyamuni’s enlightenment (p.104), the value and importance of ritual as a means of readjusting one’s perception (p.36), the often overlooked role of contrition [in Japanese Buddhism] (p.122) and so on.
The book itself consists of an account of the last days of Dharmavidya’s mother, who he and his community nursed, dovetailed with explanation of various aspects of Buddhist and Pure Land thought. His decision to write this book was obviously a very emotional one and as a fellow Pure Land follower I could easily understand how the life-and-death of Dharmavidya’s mother helped to clarify his faith. I am grateful to him for sharing something so personal for the benefit of others.
It would perhaps seem churlish then to offer any criticism but I have to admit that the book’s structure did not entirely work for me. To balance writing about a very emotional and personal chain of events, with a clear and structured exposition of Buddhist thought is a difficult challenge indeed and I think that in some senses it is almost impossible. Unfortunately the latter drains off some of the visceral power of the former, whilst the former inevitably makes the latter seem rather abstract and vague. This is not a slight on Dharmavidya’s abilities as a teacher; one might compare Taitetsu Unno’s two well-known books on Shin Buddhism. In the second he tried to impose more structure on his folksy, warm and emotive style but it actually made it a lesser book compared to the first. ‘Who Loves Dies Well’ has the same problem; it hasn’t enough structure to suffice as a comprehensive introduction to Pure Land Buddhism, nor does it have the emotive power of Shinmon Aoki’s Coffinman. All this said though Dharmavidya has made an impressive stab at conveying the heart of Pure Land Buddhism to a Western audience, and most impressively has done so in a way that is refreshingly free from sectarian pride or narrowness.
From reading the book I also gained a deeper understanding of Dharmavidya’s own path. Such decisions as calling his order the ‘Amida-shu’ (why use the Japanese suffix?) have often seemed to me to reflect a slightly cynical desire to give a new tradition the stamp of authenticity. However reading the book I could at least sympathise with the genuine challenges of uniting the diverse interests of the many participants within such a community, and the necessity for formulating certain structures and forms.
In the end Who Loves Dies Well was not a book that altered my perceptions of the Pure Land tradition, but it did lead me to re-encounter a group of fellow-seekers and to see them in a new and more open-minded light. For that then thank you Ray.
October 6, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I enjoyed your thoughtful review. Will be in touch. Namo Amida Bu
December 24, 2007 at 9:13 am
I’m interested that despite linking my review on their websites Caroline and David are still using Japanese terminology on the Amida Trust website; for example calling David’s late mother their ‘Senior Bomori’. I will take this as a rejection of my above comments but would like to understand the rationale behind it; especially given that David’s biography on the AT website calls him “a teacher who would bring the Amidist faith to the contemporary western world”.
If the AT was a predominantly Japanese sangha the use of such terms would make sense but it is not. In addition words like ‘Bomori’ (’resident priest’s wife’: lit. ‘temple helper’) and ’shu’ are not doctrinal terms (like ’shinjin’) that arguably defy translation; so the question remains why use such terminology in an entirely Western organisation which has no Japanese cultural heritage?
It gives the impression of a new religious organisation which lacks confidence in its own professed aim of translating and articulating Pure Land Buddhism for the West. Whatever one thinks of the AT the support they have received from various quarters hardly suggests such crutches are necessary.