Professor Takahashi is to be thanked for offering us a reflection on Honen which brings with it wide ranging repercussions for our understanding of (1) Honen, (2) Jodo Shu's relationship to Jodo Shinshu, and (3) the common understanding of Kamakura Buddhism as a "reformation" (using the Christian Reformation as a model).

The notion that Kamakura Buddhism should be thought of as a reformation and that Pure Land Buddhism in the Kamakura Period should be thought of as a kind of "Protestant" form of Buddhism goes back to at least 1911 and the work of Hara Katsuro at Kyoto University. Curiously, the reformation model has been popular with sectarian Buddhist scholars in Japan as well as with scholars seeking to draw links between Pure Land figures such as Honen and Shinran and Protestant Christians such as Martin Luther. This model tends to place heavy emphasis on the importance of faith and Honen's Pure Land teaching as a break with Tendai monastic practice.

As is the case with all models for interpreting complex historical realities, the reformation model both reveals and obscures. The reformation model tends to highlight the discontinuities which exist between the Pure Land tradition and its Tendai antecedent while it obscures the important continuities between Honen's Pure Land Path and Tendai Pure Land practice. Professor Takahashi's reflections on Honen's Nembutsu Samadhi are extremely helpful in calling our attention to the continuities Honen has in common with Tendai Buddhism.

Although the most important source of Honen's view of the Pure Land tradition is Shan-tao, Nembutsu practices on Mt. Hiei were shaped in no small way by the teaching of Genshin. According to Genshin's Ojo Yoshu, Nembutsu as meditation and as recitation are not to be thought of as two entirely separate forms of practice. Honen is in continuity with Genshin, a point that is well illustrated by his notion of Nembutsu recitation as a way to cultivate samadhi. Indeed, for Honen, the recitation of Nembutsu is effective in realizing a vision of Amida Buddha and the Pure Land.

Thus Professor Takahashi's paper is helpful in formulating at least three questions which are much in need of further study. The first question has to do with Nembutsu as samadhi as a faith. How are the two related? The "Protestant" view of Honen's Pure Land Path places too much emphasis on salvation by faith alone and neglects Honen's understanding of Nembutsu recitation as a way of cultivating meditative sates of consciousness. As a form of samadhi, Nembutsu recitation leads to a visualization, not a "leap of faith."

The second question has to do with Honen's Nembutsu Samadhi and Shinran's understanding of shinjin. For Shinran, shinjin, although often translated as "faith" into English, is understood as the "mind of Amida Buddha." What is the connection between shinjin as Amida's mind and Honen's Nembutsu Samadhi as a visualization?

The third question returns us to the tendency to interpret Kamakura Buddhism using the Protestant Reformation as a model. Does the Kamakura Period really mark a "reformation" akin to the Protestant Reformation in Europe? To what extent does this Western model obscure important features of this period in the history of Japanese Buddhism? In Europe, the Reformation marks the beginnings of modernity, with the decline of what Max Weber called the "enchanted cosmos," the privatization of religion and the rationalization of socio-economic structures. The Buddhism of the Kamakura Period does not seem to mark a similar change in Japan. This being the case, to what extent can we think of the Pure Land Buddhism of the Kamakura Period as a kind of "Protestant Buddhism?" Professor Takahashi's exposition of Honen's Nembutsu Samadhi does much to raise important questions for us all.

Copyright(c) by 1996-2001 Jodo Shu Research Institute