In May of 1999, I began to attend OCBC with my family. Each Sunday at regular services, we listened to a Dharma talk given by either Rev. Akio Miyaji, Rev. Marvin Harada, or Rev. John Doami.  We were also very lucky to have monthly special services where guest ministers spoke, such as Rev Tetsuo Unno, Rev Mas Kodani, and Rev Sunnan Kubose.

The variety of speakers was enriching. Each had their own perspective and approach to the Dharma. But as time went on, I began to hear doctrinal differences, which became confusing. I asked Rev. Harada about this, and he gave me a compliment. He explained that I was becoming a better listener, and that many people don’t notice the differences. I was happy that I was listening well, but the confusion remained.

Rev. Dr. David Matsumoto often says that Shin Buddhism has a very large tent that is able to support many different interpretations and approaches. As a minister, I am happy to say that I have never been discouraged from going off-brand. I think personal understanding is prized over consistency. 

So, how do we synthesize the various messages we hear into a single, coherent tradition?

It turns out that there is a historical basis for these various conceptualizations of Pure Land, which may vary by temple,  book, or class. In his book, Pure Land: History, Tradition, and Practice, Charles B. Jones identifies three major streams of Pure land Buddhism: 

1. The Western-Direction Pure Land conceptualizes the Pure Land as “a real place located to the west.” This notion challenges our secular values in favor of a spiritual realm beyond our everyday lives and suffering. However, this can discourage us from engaging in the world we live in. 

2. The Mind-Only Pure Land approach maintains that this is “the way any world appeared to a purified consciousness.” This path requires extensive meditation and visualization practices.

3. The Pure Land in the Human Realm is often described by Thich Nhat Hanh. It “designates a new religious style that would engage with concrete problems of human life.”

We can very easily come in contact with all three of these approaches as we move along the Buddhist path. So, we might consider whether the benefit of multiple perspectives outweighs any challenges in reconciling these divergent concepts, especially for those new to the tradition.

Jones sees this optimistically. Synthesizing all three together can guide us to the middle way, as each has value. He explains:

“These three strands of Pure Land [can be thought of] as three legs of a tripod. ‘Wester-direction’, ‘mind-only’ and ‘the pure land in the human realm’ do not contradict one another; in fact, all three are needed. In isolation, the search for rebirth in [the pure land] would indeed be escapist and otherworldly, ‘mind-only’ would benefit no one but the person whose mind has been purified, and the search to construct a pure land in the human realm without aspiration for rebirth and mental purification would just be another form of clinging.”

Thus, embracing all three can help us navigate successfully from this phase of life to the next, from a mind that is defiled to one that is purified, and from a world that is dystopian to one that is utopian. Though it takes patience and an open heart, finding harmony between these three streams is a worthy endeavor. Namuamidabutsu.

In Gassho,
Rev Jon Turner