Professor Nishimura's paper goes right to the heart of the historic dichotomy between Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism by directing us to the tension between two ways of conceiving of the source of power behind Buddhist self-transformation. While Pure Land Buddhists experience the source of this power beyond the self (tariki), Zen Buddhists find it within (jiriki). On this crucial issue, the tradition of Zen poses a challenge to devotional Buddhism. In claiming that "there is no object of faith" in Zen, Professor Nishimura challenges Pure Land Buddhists to justify the concept of Amida Buddha -- is this source of power an objective source that lies outside of the self altogether? Is Amida Buddha simply one being among the many beings? Or is it in fact more plausible to recognize, as Zen Buddhists do, the presence of Buddha-nature in all things, including sinful and ignorant human beings. Although "other power" may be an effective upaya under some circumstances, doesn't this conception of the religious source place limitations on the Buddha that are unacceptable? And isn't it true that these limitations on the "otherness" of the Buddha are recognized in the writings of Honen, Shinran, and other great Pure Land masters?

Conversely, Pure Land Buddhists pose a challenge back to Professor Nishimura and the Zen tradition: How can "self-power" be an adequate conception of Zen practice when the most basic teaching of Buddhism is that there is no self, that the self is empty and therefore could not be conceived as a non-relative agent of self-transformation? "The Self" is not only impermanent, but also originates dependent upon numerous factors outside itself. Therefore any power the self exerts is borrowed from other powers anyway. The experiences described in the Zen transmission texts of the shattering of the self in Great Doubt and of Zen masters taken up out of the self into a balanced reciprocity with world seem to corroborate this perspective.

Professor Nishimura implicitly acknowledges this when he discuss "faith" in Zen. As he so clearly says: "Without faith practice cannot be initiated." Pure Land masters like Honen and Shinran would be in complete agreement. How exactly to understand this faith is the issue of the day, the koan of the contemporary moment in both Zen and Pure Land. It is also the issue that, I predict, will sometime soon bring these two religious traditions in Japan together into open, serious, and thoughtful conversation. The goal of this conversation would not be to see who is right, but rather to challenge each other in such a way as to provide an opportunity for each to push more deeply into the needs of our current world situation, and to develop ideas and forms of practice adequate to the new millennium. Perhaps with that in mind, leaders of each tradition would come to acknowledge the theoretical difficulties posed in the dualism between tariki and jiriki, power located either outside the self or within it. Perhaps this conversation would come to the conclusion that "both" and "neither" might be more interesting answers, answers which could inject life into the philosophy, practice, and experience of these two dominant religious traditions. By his willingness to join us on this occasion, Professor Nishimura shows, as he has done throughout his career, his commitment to intercultural and inter-religious understanding, and that he is one voice in the Zen tradition well prepared for this kind of thoughtful exchange.

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