Jōdo Shū
The ‘Pure Land school’ founded by Hōnen (1133-1212), which was the first new school of Buddhism to be founded in Japan outside of and without the sanction of imperial authority. Hōnen was a Tendai monk who grew despondent over the failure of his religious practices to provide him with the assurance of liberation. After 30 years of practice, he reached a crisis point during which he came upon a passage in Shan-tao's commentary to the Meditation Sūtra stating that even the most unworthy will achieve rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha (Japanese, Amida) by relying on the power of Amitābha's vow to save all beings who call upon his name. Convinced by Shan-tao's assertions of the superiority of the practice of calling Amitābha's name (as opposed to other practices aimed at the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Land such as visualization and esoteric rituals), Hōnen began preaching to lay and monastics alike the wisdom of choosing this practice to the exclusion of others. While Hōnen's own conduct was irreproachable, this teaching led to problems among his followers. The exclusion of traditional Buddhist precepts led some to advocate an antinomian position, claiming that since Amitābha saved even the worst sinners, then conduct did not matter as long as one relied on his grace. This led to scandals, and in 1207 two of his disciples passed a night in the ladies chambers of the retired emperor's palace. In his anger, the retired emperor executed four followers, and banished Hōnen himself along with his other disciples. Many, including Shinran, were forced to revert to lay status.
Hōnen's own views on the practice of reciting the nembutsu (name of the Buddha Amitābha), its relation to other practices, and the relation of self-power (jiriki) to other-power (tariki) were vague. He advocated the recitation of the nembutsu as the only practice conducive to rebirth and the eventual attainment of Buddhahood, but in his own religious life he engaged in many other practices and advocated the maintenance of traditional Buddhist morality. He denigrated self-power, saying that in the age of the decline of the teachings (Japanese, mappō), people did not have any ability to effect their own liberation. Instead, he urged reliance on the ‘other-power’ of Amitābha to bring this about. However, he himself recited the nembutsu 60,000 to 70,000 times daily, saying that it was a powerful tool for purifying the mind. Thus, after his death, disputes broke out among his disciples over the nature of proper teaching and practice. The largest and most successful branch, the Chinzei-ha, owed its existence to Hōnen's disciple Shōkōbo Benchō (1162-1238). In his works, he stressed the compatibility of the single practice of reciting the nembutsu with other methods of attaining rebirth in the Pure Land that had been preserved in the Tendai school. He established several temples around the capital, and his willingness to accommodate other practices within the framework of Jōdo Shū teachings facilitated good relations with other temples and schools. The Chinzei-ha continues to advocate nembutsu recitation as a continuous practice, stressing the need to recite as many times as possible in order to maximize the purification of one's mind and the chance of attaining rebirth at the moment of death.
The Seizan-ha grew out of the activities of Zennebō Shōkō (1177-1247). Like Shōkōbo Benchō, he advocated multiple recitations of the nembutsu (he himself recited it 60,000 times daily), and cooperated closely with the Tendai school in advocating other practices alongside the nembutsu. He was of an aristocratic family, and his political connections and willingness to accommodate other practices gained his group court recognition as the official Jōdo school. Both of these subschools advocated the position of ‘many recitations’ (Japanese, tanengi). Their reasoning was that rebirth in the Pure Land could not be assured until the moment of death. At that critical moment, the mind needed to be set on Amitābha and the desire for rebirth. The practice of multiple recitations of the nembutsu, sometimes running as high as 84,000 times per day among the more avid practitioners, helped to clear the mind of other thoughts that distracted it away from the Pure Land, and made it more likely that the mind would be properly focused at the moment of death. They denied that this smacked of ‘other-power’ (Japanese, tariki), because it still depended upon Amitābha's vows to be effective. Other disciples, however, held that, if Amitābha has vowed to save all those who call his name, then one recitation ought to be enough to achieve rebirth. Multiple recitations done with the intention of purifying the mind struck them as instances of ‘self-power’, which was a betrayal of Hōnen's basic vision. Thus, they took the ‘one recitation’ position (Japanese, ichinengi). This position was defended by Jōkakubō Kōsai (1163-1247) and Shinran (1173-1262). The advantage of the ‘one recitation’ position was that it alleviated the anxiety of not knowing whether one's rebirth in the Pure Land was assured by stressing complete reliance on Amitābha's power to bring it about. After one recitation of the nembutsu, one could trust Amitābha to bring one to the Pure Land after death; in the ‘many recitation’ framework, one could not be sure until one died. However, the position had the disadvantage of being more conducive to antinomian heresy; the belief that one can do nothing that is good enough to effect one's salvation carries with it the contrapositive position that one can do nothing evil enough to impede one's salvation. Many of Kōsai's and Shinran's disciples were accused of antisocial and sinful behaviour on just this basis. Kōsai's group eventually dwindled and died out; Shinran's consolidated itself as a separate school called the Jōdo Shinshū.
After Hōnen's death, the full content of his teaching became known, and the Tendai establishment around the capital incited the court to a persecution in 1227. At that time, Hōnen's tomb was razed and the wooden printing blocks of his books burnt, although advance notice of the attack did give his disciples time to remove his body. While in the keeping of one of Hōnen's disciples, the body was cremated; however, the final disposition of the ashes cannot be verified, since possession of them came to be seen as a tool for legitimation among contenders for recognition as his legitimate successors, and many made up stories to show that they had them in their keeping. Another consequence of the persecution was that the Jōdo Shū lost its independence for a time, and was forced to become part of the Tendai school until the early 15th century. At first, the Seizan-ha dominated the Chinzei-ha, since Benchō's willingness to compromise Hōnen's exclusive nembutsu practice made it more acceptable to the monastic establishment, and because it was located in the capital, while the Chinzei-ha was more active in the countryside. However, the Chinzei-ha overcame many obstacles put in its way and established its presence in the capital by gaining control of the Chion-in, a temple built on the site of Hōnen's original tomb, which they turned into a centre for a cult of Hōnen. Unlike the other main Pure Land movement of the Kamakura period, the Jōdo Shinshū, the Jōdo Shū maintained a central tradition of ordained clergy, and sought support among the imperial family, aristocratic classes, and major samurai families. Thus, their fortunes tended to rise or fall along with those of their supporters. Both of the dominant subschools derived from founders who subscribed to the ‘many recitations’ view of practice. While ascribing the efficacy of the practice to the ‘other-power’ of Amitābha Buddha, thus affirming the inability of people to gain liberation through their own efforts, they still practise the nembutsu as much as possible in order to purify the mind, believing that rebirth is not assured until the moment of death. It stressed the outward recitation of the nembutsu rather than the inward disposition of faith, and also affirmed the usefulness of ‘auxiliary’ practices such as meditation, scripture-chanting, worship, and offerings. Thus, it was not as radical as the Shinshū in its re-envisioning of Buddhist practice.
