Pure Land Buddhist View of Du©kha1

that any sort of reference to it falls into delusive attachment to that reality itself, which is none other than its dogmatic substantialization. In this respect, our understanding of the bodhisattva’s compassion must be in itself non-substantialistic, and, moreover, we should not consider the compassion as if there were anything more ultimate or real behind and in addition to that bodhisattva’s compassionate actualization, which is itself ‘de-substantializing’. Nothing can be added to or subtracted from that compassionate activity. The non-substantialistic articulation of the bodhisattva’s ‘de-substantializing’ activity, which is compassion, is after all a thoroughgoing endeavor to elucidate the dynamic character of that activity in the midst of the actual, temporal, and historical world of sentient beings. This dynamism of the bodhisattva’s ceaseless ‘de-substantializing’ is embodied as the universal creativity of Dharmåkara Bodhisattva’s Primal Vow, whose fulfillment is Amida Buddha’s untiring dynamism of saving all sentient beings. The uniqueness of Amida’s compassion, which is the ultimate form of bodhisattva’s vicarious du©kha, will be discussed in some detail in the next section. Finally, as a special mode of bodhisattva’s vicarious du©kha, a short reference must be made to the ‘Icchantika Bodhisattva’, who appears in the Laçkåvatåra S¥tra.25 The icchantikas, who are considered the fifth order of beings in the Laçkåvatåra S¥tra, are those who have forsaken all roots of merit. This class of beings has no aspiration at all for emancipation, and due to the lack of religious concern they abuse the right dharma of Buddhism. They are the most evil people, destined for hell, and can never attain enlightenment by any means. What is here called ‘Icchantika Bodhisattva’, however, may be distinguished from the so-called icchantikas mentioned above. Although he belongs to the order of icchantika, he is a bodhiasttva in the sense that “he vowed in the beginning of his religious career that until every one of his fellow-beings is led to enjoy the eternal happiness of nirvå√a he himself would not leave this world of du©kha, but must strenuously and with every possible means (upåya) work towards the completion of his mission.”26 Among his fellow-beings there are the icchantikas also, who can never reach nirvå√a. Hence, as long as the icchantikas exist, the bodhisattva can never complete his activity of leading all beings to nirvå√a; in this sense he also can never attain enlightenment. Nevertheless, “as for the bodhisattva, he never enters into nirvå√a, for he has a deep insight into the nature of things, which are already in nirvå√a even as they are.”27 The profound religious implications of this relationship between the icchantikas and the Icchantika Bodhisattva correspond remarkably to Takeda: Pure Land Buddhist View of Du©kha 187 Amida’s untiring and universal compassion.28 Shinran, in his awareness of himself as icchantika and of Amida’s Vow resolutely ‘grasping even the icchantika without forsaking’ him, speaks of Amida as ‘grasping those who seek to escape from Amida’.29 The Mahåparinirvå√a S¥tra, also well known for the doctrine of icchantikas and its treatment of the question of their buddha-nature, profoundly influenced Shinran’s soteriology.30 In this sutra the metaphor of an aching parental heart dying when it confronts the death of the child is used to evoke the heart of a bodhisattva: “Seeing an icchantika fall into hell, he himself desires to be born there, too.”31 IV. PURE LAND EMANCIPATION FROM DUÌKHA. Since the main object of this paper is to bring to light some of the implications of the Pure Land doctrine of du©kha, the subject of this section leads us a bit afield. But, as I mentioned in the last section, deliverance from pain and du©kha as taught in the Pure Land tradition reflects the core of the Mahåyåna view of du©kha. Three factors must be taken into account as presuppositions for dealing with Mahåyåna teachings of du©kha. First, the existential mode of human beings is du©kha; all beings without exception suffer pain; everything is du©kha. Second, all beings attain enlightenment; no one is excluded from the possibility of entering into nirvå√a. Third, all doctrines of Mahåyåna Buddhist thought must be philosophically penetrated by the perspective of ‘de-substantializing’ dynamism of reality (Ω¥nyatå). Just as the very doctrine of Ω¥nyatå must be in itself de-substantial, so the reality of du©kha is not to be taken as something substantial; Någårjuna in fact argues that du©kha is de-substantial.32 My thesis is that these three factors are all present in their most radical form in the Pure Land soteriological process of emancipation from du©kha. My understanding of the Pure Land view of emancipation is based upon Shinran’s buddhology of Amida Buddha, which is of course a small but highly developed part of the whole body of different interpretations of Pure Land doctrines. In Shinran’s view, the only path to emancipation from the universal du©kha caused by the ignorance ingrained in the depth of all sentient beings, whether the wise of the Mahåyåna or the Theravåda, or the ignorant, good, or evil, is to attain faith. This faith is fulfilled by Amida’s giving her virtue to them out of her pure Vow-mind. Faith is the right cause bringing all sentient beings to the great nirvå√a.33 Hence, the Pure Land view of emancipation from du©kha focuses on the attainment of faith and on what takes place in sentient beings who realize that attainment. The notion of faith is intricately analyzed and elaborated by Shinran. Throughout his writings his Pure Land doctrines center on Amida’s