How to read the Sūtras?

As part of a dialogue that I am having with a Christian relative I have been doing quite a bit of reading about Biblical Criticism and it has struck me that many of the guidelines that Bible scholars have developed about how to read scriptures carefully apply just as well to Buddhist texts. Indeed I would go so far as to say that Buddhists still lag far behind in this area. Sure, there are plenty of commentaries out there, and lay-people do read them, but they tend to abstract the teachings and practices they describe from the historical context and textual background.

Clearly the Bible and the Buddhist Canon have grown out of radically different circumstances, and have different forms, but general principles still seem to apply. (I guess I’ll discover more in due course so I’ll add this post to the dialogue page and update it from time to time).

Possible hints when reading the scriptures

(a) Historical Context - when was the text written and what were the circumstances of the composition?
(b) Author’s Intent - This may be identifiable from (a) or (c) in particular. Also what the author says his intent is may not be the real or only intention of writing.
(c) Genre - e.g. meditation manual, mythopoetic teaching (genres vary in different societies)
(d) Literary Structure - e.g. choice of prose or verse, repetition (which may have aided memorisation and oral recitation) etc.
(e) Etymology (the history of a linguistic form) and issues of translation - the usage and meaning of words changes over time, and also in translation it is rare that an exact equivalent word is found - hence meanings are lost and added in the process.
(f) Recycling and re-interpretation of old tropes, stories, etc. - the appearance of the same trope in various texts does not mean it is used in the same way in all of them. (Both Shinran and the Zen teacher Dogen radically re-interpreted many of the forms of their predecessors.)
(g) Awkward structure, contradictory or duplicated passages - these may sometimes indicate that the text is a composite of various older texts that have been edited together.

As an aside, there are probably some who are reading this who are thinking that, “Isn’t this kind of in-depth study a long way from simple nembutsu faith?” To some extent I would agree. For the person who simply faithfully recites the nembutsu the above is probably irrelevant. But how many Western Shin Buddhists are really like that? Most will actually have delved into texts like the Tannisho from day one and, as an example, that text - which was already seen by Rennyo as dangerous if misunderstood [1] - poses even more potential difficulties with its numerous usages of Japanese words that have radically changed in meaning - and which modern translators have frequently missed [2].

See also: The Nembutsu of No-Meaning and The Problem of Genres in The Writings and Statements of Gutoku Shinran by Mark Unno

————————
[1] An anonymous note added to the Tannisho says “Thus, this is called Tannisho: Lamenting the Deviations. It should not be shown to outsiders,”and a later note by Rennyo Shonin, the 8th Abbot of the Hongwanji, says, “This sacred writing is an important scripture in our tradition. It should not be indiscriminately shown to any who lack past karmic good (shukuzen).”

[2] An example is in Tannisho IV where it is usually translated “There is a difference in compassion between the Path of Sages and the Path of Pure Land.” However in Yuien’s time the word ‘kawarime’ meant ‘turning point’ not ‘difference’. (This was pointed out by Rev. Kemmyo Taira Sato in his series of talks at the London Buddhist Society). It should therefore read something like; “In [the exercise of] compassion there is a turning point between the Path of Sages and the Path of Pure Land.” This is clearly closer to Shinran’s intention which was to emphasise faith-experience not sectarian difference.

 

Amida’s ‘Compassion’

“If one asserts that reality is fundamentally compassionate, then that should mean a certain thing and have certain implications.” – John S. Yokota

It is common place in Pure Land Buddhism to speak of ‘Amida’s Compassion’ but what does this actually mean? If we speak of Amida’s Compassion as an objective reality whilst imbuing the term ‘compassion’ with human feeling, then we run into problems of theodicy much like those found in the theistic religions. In other words we can’t talk skilfully to people who are suffering about Amida’s Compassion unless we can convey a clear sense of what is meant. Failure to convey the correct meaning will lead the person, understandably, to reject Amida’s Compassion as ineffectual or unreal.

The notion of ‘Compassion’ in the Buddha-dharma cannot and should never be understood separately from ‘Wisdom’. Or, to put it another way, compassion in the Buddha-dharma relates to the sharing of wisdom with beings. It is symbolised, for example, by the fact that after his awakening Shakyamuni Buddha decided not to dwell in contemplation but instead to go forth and teach beings about his experience.

Some senses of ‘Amida’s Compassion’ (there may be others):

(1) One sense of Amida’s Compassion therefore relates to what T’an-Luan calls the ‘Dharma-body as Compassionate Means’. As described in the Awakening of Faith Shastra it concerns the natural and unsolicited permeation into our defiled minds of the formless Dharma. It is an intuitive, subjective experience of an aspect of reality that dawns naturally – especially as we engage in contemplation and reflection.

(2) A second aspect of Amida’s Compassion relates to the Pure Land Sutras and their account of the making and fulfilment of Dharmakara’s Vows in the forms of the Name and Pure Land. This teaching gives us a framework in which to experiment with and examine the relationships between self and other, sincere wish and actual freedom to fulfil the wish, and so on. In doing so it brings us to apprehend and rely more fully on the afore-mentioned light and is therefore itself emotively (i.e. because of our joy and gratitude) experienced as the receipt of ‘compassion’.

(3) In the tension between self and other, wish and action, it is also increasingly realised that the self – far from being an independent entity – exists and takes its being on the ground of the Other. This is of course the realisation of co-dependent origination or other-power (tariki). As it is colloquially said amongst Shin followers; “we become aware of all that supports our existence”.

Though I think the last of these at times goes beyond subjectivity, and relates to a kind of non-dual state (in the case of the ‘one-thought moment of entrusting’), it is generally true to say that Amida’s Compassion needs to be understood subjectively. That said, however, in so far as the subjective experience of Amida’s Compassion – as Other-power – brings people to identify with other beings as themselves, and therefore physically act to help them, then Amida’s Compassion can become manifest in the world in an objective form.

(4) An interesting combination of subjectively and perhaps objectively experienced compassion may perhaps been seen in the case where other people –including teachers or Dharma friends – unwittingly allow us to glimpse the reality or truth of the Dharma through their natural way of living.

I wonder what people make of these musings? Have I missed out any other aspects of Amida’s Compassion, and what are the implications of such a delineation of the Pure Land conception of compassion? If we look at the example of a person, other than ourselves, who suffers a terrible, suffering-filled death, with neither mental nor physical solace being offered, where does this leave our notion of compassion? Are there places the Light of Compassion doesn’t shine (the teaching says the Light is ‘unhindered’), or must this situation be understood in the context of the cycle of samsara and/or the teaching of rebirth? And, if the latter, can the truth of change and the promise of future salvation transform or dissolve away the terribleness of that time bound moment of suffering?

Perhaps there are no answers to some of these questions beyond entrusting them to the inconceivable and transformative working of the Dharma, but I think it is sometimes good to ponder them so as to avoid falling into lazy notions of what Amida’s compassion means.

“Ikkyu sent the following koan to Rennyo: “Amida has no mercy since Amida only saves who says His Name”. Rennyo answered the koan with a poem: “There is no heart far from Amida, but a covered bowl of water covered cannot reflect the moon. “

 

Legacy of Rennyo Discussion

I’ve been participating in a discussion about Rennyo Shonin at the Jodo Shinshu Today Yahoo Groups Forum.

Rennyo’s Overall Legacy:

• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jodoshinshutoday/message/816
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jodoshinshutoday/message/817
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jodoshinshutoday/message/818

Rennyo’s Attitude to Saying the Nembutsu:

• Bob’s (Toraginus) thoughts, my initial response, Rev. Al Bloom’s comments and my next post.

Rennyo’s Frequent Mentions of Past Good (Shukuzen):

• Bob’s thoughts and my first and second responses

I really appreciate Bob starting this discussion which has really got me thinking.

Please check out the ‘Critical Shinshu’ page I’ve added to this site to provide resources regarding other debates within our tradition.