Honen’s dualism

Did one of Japan’s foremost Pure Land buddhists seek to abandon this world at the expense of valuing its empirical reality?

One of the worst things you can accuse a buddhist of, is being a dualist. It is tantamount to suggesting he or she does not have a sufficient understanding of the very basics of emptiness (sunyata).

So I’m somewhat puzzled to see Japanese professor Yoshiro Tamura (1921-1989) write this:

“The first Japanese Buddhist leader to formulate a version of Pure Land teachings based on a truly dualistic approach was the founder of the Jodo (Pure Land) sect, Honen (also known as Genku; 1133-1212).”

Wondering why
Tamura makes this assertion on page 82, in the chapter ‘Pure Land Buddhism’ of his book Japanese Buddhism. A Cultural History (first English edition, 2000). Without further explanation, one is left wondering why.

In his next chapter about Shinran, Dogen and Nichiren, the founders of the new Kamakura buddhism, we read:

“They adhered to the critique of empirical reality that was the backbone of Honen’s Pure Land teachings; yet while he sought to abandon this world, they sought to transform it.” (p. 93)

The author describes Honen’s position as “relative dualism”.

Denial of buddha-nature
Tamura doesn’t elaborate on this context, but from other sources we know that some of Honen’s contemporaries questioned his buddhist credentials. The multi-practice Tendai orthodoxy felt the heat when he, himself brought up in their midst, started to attract a following with his claim that the nembutsu was the sole means for salvation.

The charge they leveled against him is that his concept of ‘other-power’ implied a denial of buddha-nature, everyone’s innate potential to realize enlightenment. (See e.g. The Essential Shinran. A Buddhist Path of True Entrusting, edited by Alfred Bloom, 2007, pp. 253ff.)

I don’t want to suggest Tamura’s stance echoes this old sectarian strife, although it looks as if to him the Tendai doctrine of original enlightenment serves as a ‘golden standard’.

Rival theories
In her book Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism (1999) professor Jacqueline Stone of Princeton University qualifies Tamura’s perspective on Honen as “dialectical emergence” (p. 87), one of a number of “rival theories” of what exactly perspired as the Tendai hegemony was challenged by new buddhist paradigms going forward into the Kamakura period.

Another possibility, she writes (without taking sides herself), is to adopt a more gradualist approach based on a “unified, transsectarian framework” (p. 63) which attributes a greater weight to commonalities and continuity. Without more arguments to the contrary I’m inclined to subscribe to the latter kind of view of Honen’s place in mainstream buddhism.

Anyone with knowledge of Honen’s writings or light to shed on this discussion, please comment below

2 gedachten over “Honen’s dualism”

  1. You say: “One of the worst things you can accuse a buddhist of, is being a dualist”
    That’s not correct: for some buddhist it’s perhaps an accusation, but for other ones not at all , for example for Theravadins
    Cf http://www.vipassana.com/resources/bodhi/dhamma_and_nonduality.php

    I’m for example not only a dualist but even a multi-alist; still I think to understand sunyata.

    And is’n it in general evident that being an ‘bombu’ is being a dualist?

    1. Thank you, Joop. I’d like to keep the focus on Honen, so my reaction to the points you make will only be brief.

      Bhikkhu Bodhi takes aim at an image he constructs of non-duality that I do not subscribe to. Even if some buddhists were to adhere to the notion of an Absolute One, I’d argue emptiness takes precedence, i.e. this notion of Oneness is empty itself, as is the notion of emptiness, for that matter.

      I follow the early Mahayana view (Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu) that emptiness equals dependent origination. To me this makes the distinctions Bhikkhu Bodhi introduces look somewhat artificial.

      In addition, the Pali Canon does not count for me as THE record of Gautama Buddha but as A record which represents the image past traditions took in an attempt to codify his teachings hundreds of years after his death. There simply is no way to approximate the ‘truths’ of his historical appearance.

      And no, bombu is not an instance of dualism but an expression of a thoroughly Pure Land buddhist tradition.

Reageren

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s