Hōnen elevated the practice of recitation to an unprecedented level, he did not fully abandon the traditional Buddhist practice embedded in the principle of the self-power (jiriki) since, as mentioned, he still perceived the practice of recitation as a merit-producing act.
Hōnen recognized that his confrontation with the established Buddhist schools could result in challenges and he wrote that “It is my earnest wish that once you have read this work [Collection on Nenbutsu], you should conceal it in a mud wall and never leave it by your window.”68 As his teaching continued to spread, some erroneously interpreted his teachings as his permission to indulge in wine and meat and not to follow central Buddhist precepts. This led the monks on Mount Hiei to prohibit the nenbutsu practice. In November 1204, Hōnen responded by issuing the Monition on Seven Articles in which he aimed to correct the misunderstanding of his teaching. There he pointed out that he had no intention to undermine the prevailing Shingon and Tendai schools. He also stated that the practice of nenbutsu does not allow committing adultery, or breaking Buddhist dietary restrictions. Most significantly, he insisted that “the ignorant must not willingly teach nenbutsu, preach falsity without fundamental knowledge of the true Dharma.”69 Hōnen’s aim was to emphasize the fact that he had “no intention to dispute with the monks of other more traditional schools.”70
However, Hōnen’s teaching, at least implicitly, questioned the Tendai school’s focus on the significance of merit transfer and self-power (jiriki). As his teaching of the exclusive nenbutsu spread throughout the country, old temples at Mt. Hiei and in Nara tried to prevent the further dissemination of this practice. Particularly troublesome for the Buddhist establishment was the fact that Hōnen never differentiated in his teaching practices between the monks and the lay people, men and women, and the aristocrats and common folks. This lack of differentiation was perceived as a challenge to the traditional Buddhist institution since it ultimately ensured everyone’s access to the sacred. Hōnen’s approach was seen as a “religious democratization.” Already in 1204, the priests of Mt. Hiei appealed to the chief abbot to abolish the exclusive nenbutsu practice.
In 1207, when two ladies of the court secretly converted to Pure Land Buddhism after attending a special nenbutsu retreat held by Hōnen’s disciples, Hōnen and his main disciples, including Shinran, were exiled from Kyoto to different remote parts of Japan. Shinran’s tenure with Hōnen was short since he never saw Hōnen again after being exiled. “The transformation from the meditative nenbutsu to the vocal nenbutsu was a major shift in Buddhism’s historical development”71 and Shinran’s role became particularly significant in the further development of this shift. We note here that it was Shinran who “turned Shandao’s and Hōnen’s nenbutsu as ‘daily duty’ into a nenbutsu of spontaneous gratitude and Nāgārjuna’s and Genshin’s Path of Sages’ observance of the precepts into the easy human path of the King’s Law.”72
Hōnen’s teachings led to be perceived as dangerous and he and his followers seen as undermining the existing order and hence their influence had to be curtailed. As in many other historical instances, the ones who carried dissident thought had to be exiled. The exilic period led to Shinran’s crystallization of his thought since it allowed him not only to observe the life from the outside of the monastic confinement but threw him directly into a life as a lay person. We already mentioned the centrality of Amida Buddha’s significance in Shinran’s views, particularly in relation to his compassion. We also mentioned that as Amida Buddha made forty-eight vows,73 he established a Pure Land (Jōdo). We turn now to a quick discussion of Shinran’s view of “pure land” followed by the discussion of the Primal Vow (hongan).
Shinran’s Version of Shin Buddhism
Shinran was particularly attracted to the non-discriminative nature of this tradition. However, for Shinran, contrary to his predecessors, the practice of the invocation of the name, shōmyō nenbutsu was much less significant than attaining the sincere mind (shinjn). It is sincerity and spontaneity (jinen) that Shinran emphasized, not any form of calculative thinking (hakarai).74 In other words, for Shinran, shinjin cannot be attained through one’s own deliberation (hakarai). It arises instead by the working of jinen, spontaneously and genuinely. We note in passing here that for Shinran, hakarai (used to justify one’s actions) can lead to the perpetuation violence: “the resolution of issues of violence must lie in the arising of insight into the nature of the ego-self and can never be achieved through assertion and affirmation of self-will.”75
Nonetheless, two of the concepts addressed by all Seven Patriarchs became particularly prominent in Shinran’s thought, namely, the Amida Buddha’s name, or more specifically, the recitation of his name, or practice of the nenbutsu; and the differentiation between self-power (jiriki) and other-power (tariki). These concepts led Shinran to define shinjin in a dramatically new and unorthodox way since, rather than defining it as “faith,”76 it became described, as mentioned, in relation to “true, real, and sincere heart and mind.”77 The concept of trust, as we will see, is significant to Shinran’s thought as it relates to entrusting oneself to the Amida’s Primal Vow as well.
While it would be incorrect to argue that Shinran’s reform of Buddhist practice started only during his exile, it did, however, help him to crystallize certain of his contentions which resulted in some radical changes. Shinran’s own experience of exclusion from a monastic community, together with his refusal to be merely a layman either, resulted in the need to reinvent his identity and increased his sensitivity to the issues of inclusion. His firsthand familiarity with exile enlarged his awareness of the arbitrariness of judgments about good and evil and contributed to his amplified compassion for all sentient beings. While remaining committed and devoted to these ideals, this experience further informed his thought and his dedication to ordinary men and women. The ordinary people who followed Shinran’s teaching were spared anxiety over salvation and continual rebirth. This angst was alleviated with the relocation of the center of agency to the Buddha Amida. Shinran refers to the Sutra of Salvation through the Perfect Enlightenment of Amida,
Among those who see it [Amida’s immeasurable light], there is none that does not come to possess a heart of compassion and rejoice. Among all beings in the world who are possessed of licentious desires or wrath or folly, there is none who, on seeing Amida Buddha’s light, does not perform good acts.78
As we continue our exploration of Shinran’s thought, we will continue wrestling with the meaning of the effects of exile on such issues as tolerance, exclusion, and inclusion alongside with the issues of good and evil. But who exactly was Shinran’s reading audience and why did he aim to communicate his thought?
Shinran’s Genres in Writing and His Intended Audience
Most of Shinran’s writing was done in the latter part of his life when his thought crystalized after much self-reflection. His writing exhibits at least four distinct genres. His magnum opus Kyōgyōshinshō was written in 1247 when Shinran was seventy-five years old. It is considered his most philosophical work with the intended audience of “the scholar-monk or intellectual.”79 However, most of his other writing was directed toward ordinary Pure Land followers with the exception of the Jōdo monrui jushō (“Passages on the Pure Land Way”). His Ichinen Tanen mon’i (“Notes on ‘Once-Calling and Many-Calling’”), Yuishinshō—mon’i (“Notes on ‘Essentials of Faith Alone’”), the three Wasan (Hymns), his letters,80 particularly the Mattōshō (“Lamp for the Latter Ages”), Tanninshō (“A Record in Lament of Divergences”) and Gutokushō (“Gutoku’s Notes”) all were written with the ordinary people in mind. These writings were animated by the idea that what might appear simple on surface can be quite challenging to understand. This notion is manifested by the fact that two of the works (Yuishinshō—mon’i and Ichinen Tanen mon’i) conclude with exactly the same words:
That people of the countryside, who do not know the meaning of written characters and who are painfully and hopelessly
