Catching up on Shinshu blog posts, from the period I was away, I was very interested to read Dave F’s reference to a story attributed to Rennyo of a devotee dreaming that “Amida caught hold of his sleeve and held on to it firmly, not letting go even when he tried to get away.” This is fascinating as I am more familiar with the similar but inverted imagery in Rennyo’s Ofumi (Letter V-12) where he encourages devotees to cling fast to Amida’s sleeve. On the latter James C Dobbins, in a review of the Rogers translation (.pdf) of the Ofumi comments that “this image of clinging to Amida’s sleeve may have been problematic to early modern interpreters of Shinran, for it does not convey the Other-Power character of faith as emphatically as they would like. Rennyo himself considered it perfectly consistent with Shinran’s teaching of Other-Power.”

The contrast between the two images reminds me of the analogy in D. T. Suzuki’s Buddha of Infinite Light (borrowed I believe from the Vaisnavist faith*) of the monkey who carries its baby on its back with the baby clinging on, and the cat that carries its baby in its mouth. The question is whether Rennyo altered his perspective over time (coming to more or less strongly emphasise absolute other-power) or if both are valid analogies depending on one’s condition and spiritual perspective.

In the example Dave quotes, the next line of the text says; “we should understand that ‘embracing’ [sesshu] means catching and holding on to one who may want to escape” . Here then Rennyo is emphasising the absolute embrace of Other-power, whereas in the case I quoted he is talking about the act of entrusting and reliance. Considered carefully there is I think no real contradiction. Just because a mother would never drop their child does not mean that the child clings any less fiercely to them when afraid or in need. The child’s grip is unnecessary in practical terms but it is a manifestation of the bond of faith, trust and love that they feel towards the parent. Amida already has hold of our sleeve but in order to actually appreciate that fact and receive the full benefits of that relationship with the divine then we have to reach out ourselves.

In the end we always need to test religious metaphors, allegories, parables and so on against our experience - and also bear in mind the possibility that they may originally have been addressed to the specific needs of an individual or group within a context different to our own.

DT Suzuki

____________________________________________

* On paper some of the theological disucussions within the Vaisnavist community appear remarkably like those of the Pure Land tradition. Consider for example, from the link provided above, the following:

Vadakalais accept both bhakti [devotion] and prapatti [self-surrender] as a direct means for attaining moksa [roughly equiv. to nirvana]. They believe, however, that bhakti is more difficult and slow. Prapatti, on the other hand, is easy and immediate. Tenkalais [however] do not accept any means for attaining moksa because the individual soul is completely incapable of properly adopting bhakti or prapatti. Moksa can only be obtained through God’s causeless mercy.