I have been reading an article by Galen Amstutz about Shinran’s thought.[i] Amstutz argues that far from Shinran presenting a simplified, populist version of Buddhist doctrine and practice, his approach represents a more sophisticated, evolved spirituality than is found in early mainstream Buddhism and even in general Mahayana Buddhism. Moreover, he suggests, notwithstanding the fact that Shin spirituality has had virtually no impact upon Westerners who are drawn to Buddhism, it is in fact of greater relevance to contemporary culture because it expresses a more ‘evolved interiority’ than is found in earlier forms of Buddhism.

I have been inspired by Shinran’s teaching for many years and so Amstutz’s high valuation of Shinran’s contribution comes as no surprise to me. However, Amstutz’s conclusion rests on some interesting considerations. One of these is that, as he argues, early Buddhism shows very little awareness of unconscious processes, whereas Shin Buddhism recognises that a great deal of what moves and drives us is beyond our conscious awareness and even control. Early Buddhism emphasises self-mastery and is committed to the view that the conscious mind can transform the entire self over time to the point of eradicating all negative impulses.

Drawing on some contemporary psychological and neurological research, Amstutz argues that one of Shinran’s insights is that we cannot direct all our impulses/moods/thoughts because they arise from the unconscious. Some of the implications of contemporary psychology suggest that we cannot become fully conscious since our unconscious, to a significant degree, remains beyond our immediate awareness. This appears to suggest that the extent to which we can transform our volitions and basic dispositions is limited. This does not mean though that we are bound to act according to these.

Of greatest interest to me is Amstutz’s claim that our experience of inwardness – or interiority – has evolved as human culture has evolved and, consequently, we have a more complex and rich experience of interiority than did the early Buddhists. A key factor in this development is the emergence of writing (and reading). Walter Ong has argued that writing restructures consciousness by introducing a new form of discourse. According to Ong, ‘writing makes possible increasingly articulate introspectivity, opening the psyche as never before not only to the external objective world quite distinct from itself but also to the interior self against whom the objective world is set.’[ii] In short, writing allows for a more complex way of being, enabling us to develop more sophisticated inner selves. This has resulted in an evolution of human consciousness.

I am often rather resistant to the notion that human consciousness has evolved significantly in the last 2000 or years but this may just be my prejudice. I think it is easy to dismiss early cultures as primitive and present ourselves as more sophisticated and evolved. However, maybe we are more evolved – at least in relation to our experience of inner complexity. It is important to note that this does not necessarily mean we are more ethical than earlier cultures, simply that our experience of ourselves is more complicated.

Amstutz argues that Shin Buddhism is a product of the complexity introduced by literacy and that, in fact, much of Shinran’s reflection arose directly in relation to his study of texts. Rather than being in dialogue with a master, he was in dialogue with texts and this allowed him to engage in complex, individual thought which resulted in a unique approach to Buddhist practice. According to Amstutz, ‘Shinran's contribution was to focus in a newly coherent manner on the unconscious principle in Buddhist transformation’.[iii] This involves an awareness of the need for receptivity to this principle which in doctrinal terms is articulated in terms of tariki (Other power). Amstutz concludes by wondering whether the contemporary interest in Buddhism, which often focuses on the early forms rather than the later ones, is misplaced. He suggests that because Shin Buddhism embeds a more complex understanding of interiority it is, as a consequence, more relevant to our spiritual needs today.

These are complex claims and I am initially resistant to the notion that later forms of Buddhism represent a higher or more sophisticated from. I find many of the insights and emphases of early Buddhism continue to resonate for me. At the same time, I benefit significantly from reading Shinran’s thought since it emphasises different aspects of spiritual experience from those highlighted in early Buddhism.

In the most general terms, reading the article provoked me to think further about the goal of Buddhism: Nirvana. The early Buddhist model suggests that we can attain complete mastery of our inner drives and fully eradicate our greed, hatred, and delusion. Notions of the unconscious indicate that a good deal of what informs our lives is beyond our conscious control. Given this, is it possible to transform our unconscious impulses? If it is not possible, what does this say about Nirvana? Shinran’s fundamental insight was that the person who has realised shinjin (deep entrusting) both is aware that they are identical with Amida’s mind (that is with Buddha Mind) and, at the same time, an ignorant being. This paradox seems to me to touch on something fundamental about the nature of personal experience and of spiritual transformation.

[i] Amstutz, Galen. 2008. ‘Shinran's "Evolved Interiority" in Outline’ in Japanese Studies Around the World, 2008, Scholars of Buddhism in Japan: Buddhist Studies in the 21" Century, The Ninth Annual Symposium for Scholars Resident in Japan, edited by James Baskind, International Research Center for Japanese Studies: 21-47.

[ii] Walter J. Ong. 2000. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge, 1982, 2002: 145.

[iii]  Amstutz, 2008: 37.

Update on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 02:44PM by Nagapriya

In relation to my post on Shin Buddhism, a correspondent wrote:

'What really interests me is your recognition of your resistance to the idea that something about human consciousness has changed. I don't mean to challenge you impolitely, but isn't this a kind of "fundamentalism of the archaic?"'

I don't have a problem recognising that human beings have changed over even a short period of time in the way that they think and act. However, I am less sure that we are now somehow improved. The use of the terms 'evolution' and 'complexity' are obviously highly ambiguous. While I think strictly speaking evolution is not an ascent, it is often understood this way; hence 'evolved' often means 'has become better'. In addition, 'complexity' is often associated with greater intelligence, sophistication, and understanding.

So I do have a problem with the notion that we are more spiritually advanced or sophisticated than, say, the Buddha. I certainly don't feel able to assert that I am. This may be a 'fundamentalism of the archaic', I don't know. However, how about the fundamentalism of the modern, which seems just as common? We may readily dismiss earlier cultural moments as primitive and unsophisticated but according to what criteria? From my perspective, the values which prevail in the contemporary world do not seem more advanced than those the Buddha espoused.

I am generally committed to the view that the Buddha was a special human being who had powerful insight into human nature and even life in general. This entails that I am keen to learn and understand the teachings found in the Pali Canon since, to a significant degree, they link back to him. I also believe that many of these insights continue to have relevance today, although I am also aware that the form in which they are expressed does not always fit with contemporary modes of thinking. The Buddha's teachings were historically and culturally conditioned and not freestanding eternal truths. However, within his teachings are, I think, many enduring insights.

The question arises, was the Buddha inattentive to the unconscious and, as a consequence, was his teaching of Nirvana naive or limited? I don't really know the answer but I am willing to acknowledge  - as previously stated - that I have doubts about whether human beings can fully transcend greed, hatred, and delusion. One reason why they might not could be explained in terms of the unconscious.

To follow up on one point Amstutz makes in his article, he seems to equate the mind of Amida, which gifts shinjin, with the unconscious. While I thought this a bold move, which I had not previously considered, I am not necessarily sure this is right. After all, in his descriptions of the unconscious, it sounds nothing like the unlimited compassion that is the force of tariki.

Is it possible that a greater development of interiority has resulted in a greater degree of screwed-upness? Is our very complexity the reason why we now suffer so much from our psychic states? I don't know.

I am interested to explore this notion of tariki in relation to the unconscious further; is this a reliable equation? Second, I am interested in the implications of early Buddhism's, including seemingly the Buddha's, lack of awarness of the unconscious and whether this results in a naive model of change. In your article, you write quite a bit about how the unconscious is not necessarily responsive to the conscious and this raises the question of how far we can transform our underlying drives.