Zen & Pureland by David Brazier (Dharmavidya)
My Zen teacher Kennett Roshi used to say that Zen and Pureland were two entrances to the same tunnel. The implication was that if you went in Zen you came out Pureland and vice versa. I studied under her and then later became Pureland. Now I'm interested in the point where they meet. If we make a quick comparison of the salient features of the two systems we get a chart something like this:
|
ZEN |
PURELAND
|
|
Self power |
Other power |
|
Sudden awakening - satori |
Awakening of faith - shinjin |
|
Buddha nature |
Bombu paradigm |
|
Koan Nembutsu |
Zazen Chanting |
Zen and Pureland are both expressions of Mahayana Buddhism, both value the bodhisattva ideal, both value the teacher-disciple relationship, both are “practice schools” as distinct from “philosophical schools”. In Chinese Buddhism, Zen and Pureland are often practised together, though it is generally more a matter of Pureland practice within a Zen ethos. My own style is rather the other way around.
Zen means contemplation. Pureland schools have often practised contemplation. Shan Tao was perhaps the most eminent Pureland master in history and he was known for his contemplative practice. Zen, therefore, is not alien to Pureland. Similarly, chanting is not alien to Zen. Many of the benefits that come from one come equally well from the other. Some people think of Zen practice as hard and Pureland as easy, but our recent Ten Day Chanting Intensive was certainly tough and Zen also has an ideal of effortlessness. These observations show us that some of the supposedly sharp differences tend to melt away when one looks closer.
Comments