Chapter 18

Pure Land and the Environmental

Movement in Humanistic Buddhism

William Yau-nang Ng

1 Introduction

Pure Land (Jingtu 淨土 in Chinese or Jōdo in Japanese)1 Buddhism is a broad

branch of Mahayana Buddhism and one of the most widely practiced traditions in
East Asia Buddhism. The term Pure Land is generally believed to originate from a
Sanskrit word, sukhavati,2 which refers to an ideal Buddhist “paradise” of nirvana.
Pure Land Buddhism builds mainly upon the Pure Land Sutras,3 which were carried
to China around 150 CE by the monks An Shigao (安世高 fl. c. 148–180 CE) and
Lokaksema (b. 147 CE).4 The Amida Sutra (Skt. Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra)

1
The term “Pure Land” commonly refers to a world of perfection and happiness comparable to
“Heaven” in the Christian world. The idea appears simple and straightforward but is complicated
by the fact that there are different Pure Lands presided over by different Buddhas. The one under
discussion in this article is mainly the Pure Land of Amitābha Buddha. For a brief introduction to
Pure Land Buddhism, see Fujita 2005: 7502–7503.
2
There is uncertainty about the origin of the term “Pure Land” itself. Nobody can be definitely sure
which term is its equivalent in the original Sanskrit Sūtra. There are even suggestions that “Pure
Land” may be a term coined by Central Asian or Chinese followers. Fujita Kotatsu thinks that the
Amida Sutra consists of two different parts. The first half is an ancient text and the second half was
added later. See Fujita 1970: 121–132.
3
Three sutras form the core of Pure Land Buddhism. They are the Sūtra of Immeasurable Life (Skt.
Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra), the Meditation Sutra (Ch. Guan Wuliangshou Jing), and the
Amida Sutra (Skt. Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra). As Amida is also known as Amitābha or
Amitāyu and therefore the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra is also called the Amitābha Sūtra. It is
generally agreed that the Meditation Sutra does not originate from India but was written in either
Central Asia or China.
4
Lokaksema translated the Pratyupanna Samādhi Sūtra, which contains the first known mentions
of Amitābha Buddha and the Pure Land. Nattier 2008: 76.
W. Y.-n. Ng (*)
Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China
e-mail: billng@hkbu.edu.hk

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018 419

Y. Wang, S. A. Wawrytko (eds.), Dao Companion to Chinese Buddhist
Philosophy, Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy 9,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2939-3_18
420 W. Y.-n. Ng

center upon the Amitābha Buddha (Amida in Japanese) who, according to Pure
Land narrative, presides over this Pure Land which is brought about by the will
power of his compassionate Great Vow to save sentient beings. With the founding of
a monastery on Mount Lu (廬山) in 402 CE by Huiyuan (慧遠 334–416), who is
commonly regarded as the founder of the Pure Land School according to its legend-
ary narrative, Pure Land Buddhism came to prominence. It was later systematized
by Master Shantao (善導 613–681) and eventually spread all over East Asia. Along
with Zen Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism remains one of the two major Buddhist
branches in China and East Asia in general. While the ideas of Pure Land Buddhism
might not be easily comprehensible to ordinary people, its way of practice is easy to
follow, making it extremely popular.5
This paper seeks to show, with special reference to Master Sheng Yen (聖嚴法師
1931–2009)’s teaching, that Humanistic Buddhism (Renjian Fojiao 人間佛教) in
Taiwan developed hand in hand with a new understanding of Pure Land and that this
new understanding not only challenges traditional Pure Land teaching, but also pro-
vides a theoretical grounding for the social engagement of Buddhism in general, and
environmental protection in particular. Two most popular interpretations of Pure Land
are widely accepted in the school of Pure Land and that of Ch’an Buddhism. Simply
put, the first one takes Pure Land as actual places in the external world created by dif-
ferent Buddhas. The second one take Pure Land as an inner stage of mind resulted from
spiritual cultivations. This paper argues that the Pure Land teaching of Sheng Yen dem-
onstrates a three-dimensional understanding of Pure Land Buddhism that not only con-
tinues the two main interpretations of Pure Land, but also adds a socially engaged
dimension to it. This paper also attempts to demonstrate that this is done through a
creative interpretation and employment of the Pure Land ideas that seeks to include the
traditional two dimensions while creating a new and socially engaged orientation of
Humanistic Buddhism that is peaceful and educational instead of confrontational.
But before going into the discussion of these two interpretations, I will begin by
explaining the common or traditional understanding of Pure Land Buddhism. I will
then explore modern Humanistic Buddhism, which turns the other-worldly oriented
idea into a this-worldly oriented one through a creative re-interpretation of Pure
Land, and how this new interpretation paves the way for social participation, espe-
cially through environmental protection. As Dharma Drum Mountain (Fagu Shan)6
is representative of those advocating environmental protection by using Buddhist
and Confucian spiritual resources in general and Pure Land concepts in particular,
relevant ideas of Sheng Yen, the founder of Dharma Drum Mountain, will be dis-
cussed in detail.7 After that, this paper will offer theoretical reflections on such

5
A report records that between 1941 and 1960 the Taiwanese built more temples to Amitābha
Buddha than any other deity (Thomson 1989, 326). For an overall understanding of the develop-
ment of Buddhism in Taiwan, see Heng Ching 1992: 417–434.
6
Dharma Drum Mountain is an important school of Humanistic Buddhism in Taiwan. It was
founded by the late Master Sheng Yen. See official site: http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/
about/about.aspx?sn=111
7
To include the environmentalist campaign of Shen Yen and Dharma Drum Mountain in a broader
context of Chinese Buddhist environmentalism and the relationship between spirituality and envi-
ronmentalism, see Clippard 2012.
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 421

issues as self-power and other-power, immanence and transcendence, the nature of

this new form of Pure Land Buddhism and its possible weaknesses.

2 The Characteristics of Traditional Pure Land Buddhism

2.1 Other-Worldly Orientation

Traditional Pure Land Buddhism,8 especially Amitābhism, is other-worldly oriented

and emphasizes the “salvation/liberation” power of Amitābha Buddha. The main
emphasis is on leaving this world of suffering and obtaining rebirth in the Pure
Land. While the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, such as the ideas of emptiness
and conditioning origination are also mentioned in Pure Land Buddhism, the most
important goal of spiritual cultivation in this branch of Buddhism has always been
the direct liberation from samsara, the cycle of life and death, in this lifetime and
rebirth in the Pure Land. What is especially noteworthy is the goal of migrating to
the Pure Land in this lifetime instead of going through an extended process of seek-
ing life after life. The quick liberation to the Pure Land is made more attractive by
the promotion of the “easily practicing path” (yixingdao 易行道).

2.2 The Easy Path of Cultivation

Traditional Pure Land Buddhism is widely accepted for its teaching of the “easy
path” in one’s spiritual cultivation. The most popular path among Pure Land practi-
tioners is the faithful recitation of praise to Amitābha, known as nien-fo 念佛, which
in one sense is an act of invoking grace from the Buddha and thus trying to bring
about one’s rebirth to the Pure Land after death. Nien-fo represents a strong faith in
the “salvation/liberation” power of Amitābha.9 Therefore, the reliance on other

8
For a brief introduction to Pure Land Buddhism, consult Oxtoby 1996: 274–276, 299–301. For a
short introduction to the practices of Pure Land Buddhism and some translations of its important
texts, see also Daniel Stevenson, 1995. Modern English works on Pure Land usually deal with Pure
Land Buddhism in Japan while disregarding its development in China and Tibet. However, both
Chinese and Japanese scholars published on Pure Land Buddhism in China. See Chen 2000. A
classic in the field is Mochizuki Shinko’s Shina jōdo kyōri shi (1975). Recently, the situation has
improved. Works have been written, which cover different developments and manifestations of this
branch of Buddhism in the region. See Payne and Tanaka 2004.
9
The teaching of Pure Land focuses on Amitābha Buddha, emphasizing the compassionate will
power of his “Great Vows” to release the suffering of all sentient beings, especially by taking
people to a world of ultimate happiness and thus putting an end to the cycle of rebirth. Japanese
Pure Land Buddhism tends to emphasize the dependence on Amitābha and, thus, the total respect
or submission to Amitābha. See Haneda 2016.
422 W. Y.-n. Ng

power has been a widespread understanding of this branch of Buddhism.10 Since it

features a heavy, if not complete, dependence upon the power of Amitābha, Pure
Land Buddhism is often referred to as an “easy” path of cultivation.
In sum, traditional Pure Land Buddhism teaches a quick liberation from suffer-
ing through a very focused goal of achieving rebirth in the Pure Land right after the
end of this lifetime by relying heavily upon the power of the Amitābha Buddha,
invoked usually through chanting the name of the Buddha. The main aim of this
branch of Buddhism is to leave this earthly world as soon as possible, and therefore
there is not much interest in this world. Any concerns about this world can easily be
taken as attachment that leads to nothing except suffering. Therefore, there is almost
a complete lack of interest in social and political philosophy in traditional Pure
Land Buddhism. In sum, the general orientation of traditional Pure Land Buddhism
as reflected in the belief in Amitābha is devotional and soteriological in nature and
seldom engages in social participation.

3 Two Traditional Understandings of “Pure Land”

However, Pure Lands are understood differently in different Buddhist schools and
according to different sutras. Some take Pure Lands as a purified state of mind cul-
tivated through practice, while others regard them as actual places.11
According to the Amida Sūtra, the Pure Land exists far away to the West of our
Earth. There is a Pure Land of ultimate happiness where a Buddha, Amitābha, gives
sermons (T 12, 364: 270a and T 12, 366: 346c). It is clear that the Pure Land referred
to in this sutra is an actual place. Such a Pure Land is, thus, a reality that is ontologi-
cally independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, belief or linguistic con-
struction. In philosophical terms, this is a kind of understanding of Pure Land that
is close to realism.
However, according to the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, if any Bodhisattva wants to
obtain a Pure Land, he should purify his mind. And following the purification of his
mind, there comes the purification of the Buddha Land (隨其心淨, 則佛土淨)
(Huimin 1997: 25–44). Pure Land, in this sense, is actually the outcome of a spiri-
tual cultivation. However, it is important to note that the Pure Land in this scriptural
context allows for different interpretations. It can still refer to an actual place cre-
ated mystically through in-depth spiritual cultivation of a Boddhisava’s mind. This
concurs with the general idea prevalent in the Pure Land Buddhist tradition, which
takes Pure Land as the place created from the Great Vow of a Buddha. As there are
many Buddhas, there are different Pure Lands. However, the Pure Land in this text
can also be taken symbolically to mean a thoroughly purified state of mind. It is not

10
Japanese scholar D. T. Suzuki (among others) has spread this kind of understanding through his
introduction of Buddhism to the West. Suzuki 1925: 285–326.
11
Tanaka points out that there are two conflicting interpretations of the Pure Land, which he refers
to as “objective” and “subjective.” Tanaka 1987: 36–45.
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 423

an actual place in the West, but a particular stage of purification of one’s mind. It is
noteworthy that, according to the Sutra, this purified stage is achieved by a
Bodhisattva and is not achieved by ordinary people.
If Pure Lands are stages from one’s mind, then, they are mental or mentally con-
structed. This kind of understanding is close to idealism in the philosophical sense,
meaning that it is a subjective creation and does not exist independently in the phys-
ical world.
The above two understandings represent two major interpretations of Pure Land
in Chinese Buddhism. People refer the first as Pure Land in the Other-world (tafang
jingtu 他方淨土) and the second as Pure Land of the Mind (weixin jingtu 唯心淨
土). The latter interpretation is usually emphasized in Ch’an Buddhism. (Tanaka
1987: 37–38) Such a Pure Land does not exist in the external world; rather, it is a
state of a cultivated mind. Therefore, in this sense, Pure Land is the manifestation
(xian見) of a purified mind and exists only within a purified mind.
However, if one takes the two interpretations as subjective and objective under-
standings, one must be careful to avoid viewing them as necessarily contradictory.
In fact, some make use of the Mahayana concept of two-fold truth, namely
paramartha-­satya, “ultimate truth”, and samvrti-satya, “conventional truth”,12 and
see the objective and subjective understandings of Pure Land as reflecting the con-
ventional dimension and ultimate dimension respectively. The objective under-
standing that takes the Pure Land as an actual place that exists is only a conventional
truth, while the subjective understanding, which refers to the purification of the
mind, can contribute to the attaining of enlightenment. This understanding takes the
“mind” over the “land.” It results in over-emphasizing the “mind” or even replacing
the Pure Land with a Purified Mind. This may reflect the Ch’an position, which puts
emphasis on the mind. However, this kind of attempt to subsume Pure Land within
one’s mind actually means the nullification of Pure Land for Pure Land followers.
Pure Land followers also make use of the two-fold truth, but not to interpret the
actual place of Pure Land as conventional; rather, they still believe in the existence
of such a reality. The tension between the two understandings continues and the two
schools influence and assimilate with each other without any significant break-
throughs until, perhaps, the coming of Humanistic Buddhism.

12
The key notion of emptiness implies that all dualities, like existence and nonexistence, are ulti-
mately false. The two-fold truth system in Mahayana Buddhism seeks to resolve this apparent
conflict by stating that ultimately things do not exist as such. In other words, they do not exist as
they seem to exist, substantially. Therefore, ordinary reality is ultimately nothing more than con-
vention. Understanding ultimate truth also includes understanding the nature of ordinary reality as
nothing more than conventional. See Silk 2015.
424 W. Y.-n. Ng

4 Humanistic Buddhism

Chinese Buddhism has made great advances in the last 30 years, centering predomi-
nantly on the idea of “Humanistic Buddhism,” a new form of Buddhism initiated
first by Master Taixu (太虛 1889–1947) and later developed by different leaders
including Masters Yin Shun (印順 1906–2005), Xing Yun (星雲 Hsing Yun 1927–),
Sheng Yen (聖嚴 1931–2009) and Zhengyan (證嚴 Cheng Yan 1937–). These lead-
ers, though they do not come from the Pure Land School, have offered new under-
standings of the Pure Land teachings. To understand this new development, it is
important to look at Yin Shun, one of the most learned twentieth century Chinese
scholar-monks and an authoritative figure of Humanistic Buddhism in Taiwan. Here
we will turn to examine his interpretation of the Pure Land and its implications.
Yin Shun writes:
I continued the idea of Master Taixu of a Buddhism of Human Life that is free of ghosts and
demons, went one step further and laid the foundations for a Buddhism without deifica-
tions. (Yin Shun 1993: 69.)

He goes on to remark that:

“Land” is ksetra in Sanskrit, which means a world or a place. ‘Pure Land’ refers to a world
of purity. ‘Pure’ means filth-less and without unclean elements. (Ibid.)

Accordingly, what is pure is understood to be the opposite of what is impure in a

way that highlights its positive meaning, such as getting rid of unclean elements. A
“land” is a place or a world. As a consequence, a “Pure Land” is a place of pureness
or a world of beneficence. Yin Shun’s idea of Pure Land reflects his emphasis on the
realm of humanity. He thinks that the common emphasis on ghosts or deities is a
deviation from original teaching of the Buddha, and, thus, is an impure skillful
means (Yin Shun 1987: 6). Before Yin Shun, Taixu had criticized the over-­
secularization of those Buddhist monks who focused wrongly on liberating the
death towards Sukhavati, the “paradise” liked place for the deceased to go, accord-
ing to a popular belief of many Chinse Buddhists and providing funeral service in
order to make a living. Yin Shun, as well stated by Stuart Chandler, argued that “by
devoting too much attention to Sukhavati,” “the Chinese Buddhists have allowed
their practice to become associated with death, blind faith, and otherworldly mat-
ters. Rather than merely hoping to be reborn in Sukhavati, Buddhists should model
themselves on Amitabha, Bhaisajya-guru, Aksobhya, and Maitreya, all of whom of
created pure lands through their great vows and practice.” (Chandler 2004: 57–8;
Yin Shun 1992: 20–39.) Accordingly, one should aim at not just getting rebirth to a
purified world but also follows the examples of the Amitabha to purify oneself and
create a pure land to help to others.
In sum, the word “Pure” has two meanings here: one is objective; the other, pro-
cessual. The objective refers to the degree of the purity and beneficence of the Land,
while the processual refers to the purifying process or movement for the mind and
the world. Yin Shun’s interpretations of the term do not run counter to these main-
stream understandings, but it is noteworthy that his interpretations of the teachings
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 425

have actually opened the door for new practices of Pure Land Buddhism in
Humanistic Buddhism.13
It is clear that this reinterpretation not only emphasizes having a pure mind, but
also strives to make the world a Pure Land in the spirit of Mahayana Buddhism.
Such an effort to change the world and human mind represents a movement of puri-
fication to clean up internal and external pollution. In this context, the word “pure”
becomes a verb, which is “to purify,” instead of being a noun meaning “genuineness
and spotlessness” or an adjective meaning “clean, spotless, and unpolluted.”
Whether this movement of purification is in individuals’ minds or in the world, it is
always a purifying practice according to Yin Shun’s interpretation.

5  ew Understanding and Practices in Humanistic

N
Buddhism: A Case Study of Master Sheng Yen

5.1 Humanistic Buddhism

Among the many temples, monasteries and religious foundations within this-­
worldly Buddhism in Taiwan, four are most famous. They are the Foguangshan
(Buddha Light Mountain), the Fagu (Dharma Drum Mountain), the Chung Tai
Ch’an Monastery (Zhongtai Chan Monastery), and the Tzu Chi or Ciji Foundation
(Buddhist Compassion Relief Foundation). (Jones 1999: 178–218) They are the
largest and most influential Buddhist organizations in Taiwan. Even though each of
them has its own characteristics in terms of teaching style and concrete practice, all
of them share a this-worldly orientation that is based on the humanistic movement
initiated by Master Taixu in the 1930s, with its strong emphasis on social and politi-
cal engagement and involvement.14 However, new ideas and modes of practice have
developed since then.
Taixu criticised traditional Chinese Buddhism as “teaching Mahayana Buddhism
but practicing Hinayana Buddhism”. (Yin Shun 1987: 178) It is a popular misunder-
standing among Chinese Buddhists to criticize the followers of the “Hinayana” tra-
dition as selfish as they care for their own liberation only. In contrast, the Mahayana
Buddhists follow the path of the Bodhisattvas that aims not only for self-liberation
but for the liberation of all sentient beings. Taixu was upset by the Chinese

13
For a brief introduction to Humanistic Buddhism, see Bingenheimer 2007: 141–161.
14
In fact, the four are closely related. Master Sheng Yen wrote, “These four organizations are often
called the four mountains of Buddhism in Taiwan, but they do not oppose one another. Rather, we
interact. The founder of Zhongtai Mountain, Master Weijue, and I had the same master, Lingyuan.
Master Xingyun, the founder of the Buddha’s Light, was a student of Master Dongchu, so we are
also Dharma brothers and very good friends. Master Zhengyan was a student of Master Yinshun,
who was a student of Taixu. My late master Dongchu was the Dharma brother of Master Yinshun,
so we are part of the same lineage.” See Sheng Yen 2009: 194–195. Quotation here is adapted with
slight modifications from this English version after consulting the original Chinese version. See
Sheng Yen 2014: 311–312.
426 W. Y.-n. Ng

Buddhists’ selfishness in that they care for one’s earthly well-being when alive and
the rebirth into a better life after death. The Humanistic Buddhist organizations in
Taiwan almost without exception emphasize social engagement and the active pro-
motion of Buddhism in society, rejecting the long-term life of reclusion and devot-
ing themselves to active concern for and practical relief of the sufferings of people
in society. Health services, education and emergency relief, among other services,
are commonly provided by these Humanistic Buddhist non-governmental
organizations.

5.2 Master Sheng Yen’s Idea of Pure Land

5.2.1 Master Sheng Yen and His Social Movement

Dharma Drum Mountain was established by Master Sheng Yen. Although he

received the Dharma lineage from both the Lingji 臨濟 School and the Caodong
曹洞 School of Ch’an Buddhism, he dedicated himself to establishing a Pure Land
in the human realm. The vision of this school is shown by its slogan, “to uplift the
character of humanity and build a pure land on the earth”, which the Master
announced at the age of 60.15 He put it directly and clearly by announcing that “The
Pure Land on the earth advocated by the Dharma Drum Mountain is the comprehen-
sive promotion and universal actualization of Humanistic Buddhism.” (Sheng Yen
2003: 10) It is clear that the idea of Pure Land is central to Master Sheng Yen in his
promotion and implementation of Humanistic Buddhism.
In 1992, Master Sheng Yen systemized his early environmental ideas and prac-
tices and named the year “the Environmental Protection Year”, promoting modern
environmental concepts such as “to reduce,” “to replace,” “to recycle,” and “to
reuse.” However, all are built upon the “environmental protection of mind-and-­
heart” (xinling huanbao 心靈環保). His proactive combination of Buddhist concept
and environmental movement pointed to a new direction for understanding and
practicing the idea of Pure Land. (Lin 2004: 22).
Master Sheng Yen proposed the “Environmental Protection of Rite” in 1994 and
a “Four Securities Movement”, including security of spirituality, security of body,
security of family and security of career, in 1995. In 1999, Dharma Drum Mountain
promoted a “Fivefold Spiritual Renaissance Campaign”.16 Since then, Master Sheng

15
In September 1989, Sheng Yen elaborated this vision in detail in a sermon for the first time. This
sermon was later revised and published as “Fagushan de Gongshi” (Sheng Yen 1999: 83–84). Yet
the vision was certainly mentioned briefly before 1989. For instance, Master Sheng Yen mentions
the vision in “The Pure Land on Earth in the Humanistic Buddhism,” [人間佛教中的人間淨土],
in Sheng Yen 2003: 151. For an explanation of the vision of Dharma Drum Mountain, see the
official website: http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about.aspx?sn=110
16
The so-called “Fivefold Spiritual Renaissance Campaign” aims to “transform the abstruse and
difficult terminology and doctrines of Buddhism into a set of ideas and methods that the average
person can understand, accept and use in their daily lives.” The campaign includes the following:
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 427

Yen has developed a grand systemic discourse, which incorporates the thinking,
mind, practices of people and social problems, and integrates them into a great envi-
ronmental purification movement.

5.2.2 The Internal and the External Aspects of Pure Land

It is noteworthy to see how Master Sheng Yen himself depicts his kind of environ-
mental protection:
We promote what we call environmental protection in several ways. We protect our daily
living environment by keeping the buildings and surroundings simple and tidy, and we
promote practical, clean living both at DDM [Dharma Drum Mountain] and in the homes
of our followers. We protect our social environment through proper etiquette, and compas-
sionate manner, and act with respect and gratitude, without coming into conflict with oth-
ers. We protect the natural environment by not wasting resources. Finally, we protect our
spiritual environment. Our followers are taught to use the concepts and methods of Ch’an
to help themselves when they feel vexed or disturbed, instead of putting themselves in
opposition to their environment. Ch’an helps you open your mind, accept every situation,
serve everyone, and use compassion and wisdom to handle whatever arises. (Sheng Yen
2003, 195)

The meaning of environmental protection for Master Sheng Yen goes beyond the
scope of its conventional understanding. He promoted four kinds of environmental-
ism, namely, the protection of the spiritual environment, the protection of social
environment, the protection of the living environment and the protection of natural
environment. According to Sheng Yen, “a person’s body and mind are direct karmic
retribution and the environment she lives in is circumstantial retribution. Direct and
circumstantial retribution form one’s place of practice. Every person uses her direct
retribution to practice within her circumstantial retribution. Thus one must care for
the environment just as one would for her own body. Thus the fundamental essence
of each of the four kinds of environmentalism is Buddhism.”17 In fact, these four
kinds of environmental protection can be classified into two aspects. In the internal
aspect, Master Sheng Yen’s concept of environmental protection promotes the per-
sonality and spirituality of individuals. In the external aspect, it tackles the practices
of individuals and societal problems. Protection of the natural environment, the core

A. Four Fields for Cultivating Peace: (i) Mind, (ii) Body, (iii) Family, (iv) Activity. B. Four
Guidelines for Dealing with Desires: (i) Need, (ii) Want, (iii) Ability, (iv) Propriety. C. Four Steps
for Handling a Problem: (i) Face it, (ii) Accept it, (iii) Deal with it, (iv) Let go of it. D. Four
Practices for Helping Oneself and Others: (i) Feeling grateful, (ii) Feeling thankful, (iii) Reforming
yourself, (iv) Moving others through virtue. E. Four Ways to Cultivating Blessings (i) Recognizing
blessings, (ii) Cherishing blessings, (iii) Nurturing blessings, (iv) Sowing the seeds of blessings.
As is evident the campaign contains five dimensions and each dimension has four elements. See
information on official website: http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about.aspx?sn=112
Online: 12 September 2016.
17
See Dharma Drum Mountain official website at: http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/
about.aspx?sn=112 Online: 25 July, 2017.
428 W. Y.-n. Ng

of environmental protection in its common sense, only comes out at the very end of
his program. Master Sheng Yen states:
Although I coined the term ‘environmental protection of spirituality’, its content is just a
correction of concept, which promotes the quality of men. It does not solely prevents men
from developing a blow of mind due to the impact of external environment, but also keeps
a healthy attitude to face the reality and resolve problems. (Sheng Yen 2001: 5)

Therefore, it is not surprising to see in the opening chapter of his Pure Land on
Earth that the Master introduces the work of the Dharma Drum Mountain in the
following words:
… for many years just like all orthodox Buddhists with rightful faith has been doing works
to purify the human mind; purify the work in the society. (Sheng Yen 2003: 13)

It is very clear that Master Sheng Yen did not limit the act of purification within
one’s mind. Rather, he advocated social movement so as to purify society. Internal
purification is an old concern and emphasis of Buddhism in general and Chan in
particular. Apart from the natural focus of purifying one’s mind, Master Sheng Yen
brought the focus of cultivation outwards and emphasized the transformation of the
society.

5.2.3 The Mind Is the Starting Point of Purification

It is Master Sheng Yen’s strong belief that:

In order to purify the world, one must first emphasize the purification of the human mind;
in order to save the human world, one must first save the human aspiration. Śākyamuni
Buddha taught for 40 years with the aim of saving the human mind. We, the Dharma Drum
Mountain, also put forwards one movement of environmental protection of the mind.
(Sheng Yen 2003: 12)

The connection of the internal state of mind to the external state of the social and
natural environment rests upon a belief that takes the former as the premise of the
latter’s purification or improvement. It is with the mind that one should begin one’s
efforts for a Pure Land.

5.2.4  e-examination of the Nature of Pure Land in the Eyes

R
of Sheng Yen

To legitimize his Buddhist discourse of environmental protection, Master Sheng

Yen skillfully employs Buddhist sutras to obtain the necessary scriptural support.
The most-cited verse for the discourse is “because of his pure mind the Buddha land
is pure.” in the Vimalakirti Sutra. (Luk 1972: 13). He also suggests that the purity of
an individual’s spirituality prevents people from developing the feeling of annoy-
ance, improves their behavior and, thus, affects others (Sheng Yen 2003: 20). Clearly
this ideal way of salvation/liberation starts from the individual awakening through
learning and practicing the Dharma. Therefore:
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 429

the goal of developing the Pure Land on the earth is not to move the universal Kingdom of
Buddha to the human world or demonstrate the Pure Land of the Amitābha Sutra, the
Medicine Buddha Sutra, the Akshobhya Sutra and the Maitreya Bodhisattva Sutra on the
earth. It is to purify people’s spirituality by employing the Dharma and to purify the society
by the living pattern of Buddhists. Many a little makes a mickle. Through the purification
of thinking, living and spirituality to accomplish the purification of the social and natural
environment. (Sheng Yen 2003: 9.)

Therefore, the Pure Land on Earth is neither objective nor subjective in the tradi-
tional senses mentioned above. It does not refer to the “Pure Land in the other
world” and the “Pure Land of Mind” within one’s mind. Rather, it is an “ideal
world” sought to be developed and actualized on the earth. In this sense, the Pure
Land of Humanistic Buddhism as interpreted by Master Sheng Yen provides not
only the vision but also the concrete instructions for Buddhist social participation
using a much extended and redefined framework of environmental protection. The
goals of Pure Land Buddhism are multiple. They include not only the purification of
the inner world of one’s mind and the transmigration to the external Kingdom of
Buddha, but also the improvement of the quality of humanity and the establishment
of a better world on the earth.
In the past, a philosophical question central to Pure Land Buddhism was whether
the Pure Land is an empirically existing Kingdom of Buddha in the ‘other world’,
or whether it is an ideal state of mind. While the former is an “objective reality”, the
latter is a “subjective state of mind.” However, the Pure Land on the earth is to be
achieved in the empirical world on this earth. Such a Pure Land is different but
related to the Pure Land above the human realm and the Pure Land within the inner
mind-and-heart. In contrast to the Pure Land within a cultivated mind, the Pure
Land on the earth is external. In contrast to the Pure Land in the Kingdom of Buddha,
the Pure Land on the earth is earthly.
Traditional Chinese Buddhism emphasizes spiritual cultivations such as medita-
tion and chanting in one’s life as a means of attaining the Pure Land within oneself
and the rebirth into the Pure Land after death. Neither places emphasis upon the
social and political participation in society. The belief in a Pure Land on the earth
does not only provide the soil for social participation between the transcendent
heaven and the internal spirituality. This Pure Land is the right impure or even dirty
place in which one can carry out socio-political participation. The Pure Land on this
earth is inhabited by both the saints and the ordinary people; the pure and the
impure. (Sheng Yen 2003: 136–138.) It is also a zone for spiritual cultivation, not
just in traditional ways like meditation or chanting but also through concrete social
action. Active social action, just like passive meditation and chanting, is not ordi-
nary social engagement but rather a kind of spiritual cultivation. Consequently, the
practices used in establishing the Pure Land on the earth are actually directed to
both internal and external cultivations aiming for a better human world. The cultiva-
tion intends to improve human ability and quality. And the improvement in human
quality, in turn, enhances the establishment of Pure Land on the earth.
In retrospect, Sheng Yen’s idea of environmental protection begins with the spiri-
tuality of the individual, progressing to society, and finally to the natural world. It
connects concern for the natural environment to the traditional Buddhist ideal and
430 W. Y.-n. Ng

practice. Since the “Pure Land” in Sheng Yen’s interpretation is both internal and
external, the followers of Buddhism, accordingly, should not only show compas-
sionate concern towards sentient beings and the environment where these beings
live; they should at the same time maintain the religious aspiration for the spiritual
cultivation of their own minds so as to attain the goal of enlightenment.

6 Reflection

Master Sheng Yen offered a creative interpretation of Pure Land in trying to bring
about a peaceful social movement. His major attempt was to persuade the govern-
ment and society to support a new form of living with a purified mind, harmonious
family and social relationship, and a special concern for the natural environment.
This attempt to transform society still continues by the Dharma Drum Mountain,
although the Master passed away already. In the previous section, we briefly intro-
duced his idea of Pure Land. In the following, we shall reflect upon this and attempt
to offer a critical evaluation of his idea.

6.1 Immanent and Transcendent

Pure Land, in a sense, is a domain of “divine nature.” It is interesting to examine

Pure Land by employing the conceptual pairing of immanence and transcendence.
One of the key understandings of this pair of concepts is to see if the divine is
beyond or excel of the world. Those metaphysical positions that take the divine as
encompassed or manifested in the mundane world can be seen as upholding the
view of immanence. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which
the divine completely transcends the mundane world. In the traditional discussion
of the philosophy of religion, transcendence usually refers to the basic characteristic
of monotheistic, such as the Judeo-Christian tradition, while immanence applied to
pantheistic or panentheistic faiths so as to highlight how the spiritual world perme-
ates the mundane.18 Yet, the different understanding of the Christian God has pro-
vided ground for interpretations that emphasize upon the relationship and interaction
between God and the mundane world.19

18
There are different understandings of this pair of concepts, and different interpretations of the
nature of Christian God also made it difficult to categorize the Christian God as only transcen-
dence. See Hartshorne 2005: 9281–9286.
19
Some scholars think that the Christian God is both immanent and transcendent or He is panen-
theistic. Jürgen Moltmann, for example, emphasizes upon the indwelling of God. He said, “In the
end, however, the new heaven and new earth will become the ‘temple’ of God’s indwelling. The
whole world will become God’s home. Through the indwelling of the Spirit, people and churches
are already glorified in the body, now, in the present. But then the whole creation will be transfig-
ured through the indwelling of God’s glory. Consequently the hope, which is kindled by the experi-
ence of the indwelling Spirit, gathers in the future, with panentheistic visions. Everything ends
with God being ‘all in all.’” See Moltmann 1993: 104-105.
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 431

However, the traditional understandings of Pure Land can be close to either the
immanent side or the transcendent side. Pure Land if interpreted in the realist sense
refers to a transcendent world that exists in reality. In contrast, if it is taken to be a
stage of a cultivated mind, then Pure Land is necessarily immanent. The Pure Land
on the earth as interpreted by Master Sheng Yen is both immanent and transcendent.
It begins with cultivation within, and the purification of one’s mind is a form of Pure
Land. This form of Pure Land is immanent. However, Master Sheng Yen also
respects the realistic position of the Pure Land school, and he avoids to deny the
existence of the Pure Land in the other world. (Sheng Yen 1997: 25–34.) Yet, what
he wants to emphasize is that the Pure Land may be established in this world through
different kinds of purification that he groups under an umbrella term, environmental
protection. In his agenda, Sheng Yen took the purification of the human mind as the
premise for the purification of other domains, including social and natural environ-
ments. The cumulative result of purification is the establishment of the Pure Land
on the earth.
It seems that Sheng Yen presupposes a specific Mahayana metaphysic in his
discourse. Theoretically, any purification necessarily involves an evolutionary pro-
cess from impurity to purity. However, to better understand Sheng Yen’s idea of
Pure Land, it is necessary to analyze it further. Purification here is not a process of
transforming the nature of one’s mind from impurity to purity since, according to
mainstream Zen/Chan Buddhism, the nature of the mind (known also as Buddha
nature) is always pure. Therefore, purification in Sheng Yen’s discourse refers to
cleaning up all those negative elements that hinder the proper functioning of one’s
mind. The nature of the mind remains unchanged. Simply put, the purpose of such
a purification is not to change the nature of the mind of an individual, but to restore
the proper functioning of one’s mind so that the mind can transform one’s attitude
towards the environment and make efforts to transform the earthly world. This
belief in the original purity of the mind is, perhaps, best illustrated by Master Yueh
of Chaling’s poem on “Bright Pearl,” which reads as follows (Wu 2003: 248):
There is a bright pearl within me,
Buried for a long time under dust.
Today, the dust is gone and the light radiates,
Shining through all the mountains and rivers.
It is common in Buddhist text to use a bright pearl as a metaphor for the purity
of Buddha nature. One important tradition of Chinese Buddhism is the general
acceptance of the existence of an innately pure luminous mind (prabhasvara citta),
commonly depicted as a bright pearl in Buddhist literature, which is only covered
over by defilements. In fact, Master Sheng Yen called such a mind of purity a “Pure
Land.” Traditionally, there is a kind of Pure Land referred to as the “Pure Land of
Self-nature,” which means precisely a Pure Land of the nature of one’s self. Here,
the Pure Land is not an actual space. Rather, it is referred to as a particular stage of
mind that is purified and such a purified mind is the manifestation of the self-nature
that can be in time polluted but can be a strong inner source that is capable of sup-
porting one’s spiritual cultivation towards liberation.
432 W. Y.-n. Ng

In this sense, the Pure Land on the earth is the actualization of one’s internal
Buddha nature in the external world. Therefore, while showing faith in the saving
power of the Amitabha Buddha, Sheng Yen’s teaching emphasizes very much the
practitioners’ self-determination and efforts in obtaining spiritual achievement. This
is a reflection of the belief in the presence within all sentient beings of Buddha
nature, which provides the grounding of self-power in one’s spiritual pursuit. Thus,
Sheng Yen’s teaching on Pure Land Buddhism demonstrates a balance between self-­
power and the other power. This dual-emphasis is a continuation of the mainstream
understanding of Pure Land Buddhism in China.20 Yet, it is very much different
from that of Japan, which places emphasis solely on the power of the Amitabha
Buddha. But what Sheng Yen taught is not merely a continuation of the old spiritual
tradition: the very concept of Pure Land changes under his new interpretation.

6.2 A New Understanding: Pure Land in the Human Realm

Sheng Yen strives to be open enough to different interpretations of Pure Land. But
he is innovative enough to offer a new understanding of Pure Land in the human
realm. However, he does not reject all traditional understandings. In his works,
Sheng Yen groups them into four categories, referring to four different kinds of Pure
Land (Sheng Yen 1997). His understanding of Pure Land is therefore not based
upon rejecting any traditional interpretation; rather, Sheng Yen attempts to accom-
modate all of them. He accepts the assertion of the existence of Pure Land as advo-
cated in particular by the Pure Land followers, yet he also continues the Chan
interpretation of Pure Land by taking Pure Land not so much as an external world
to be transmigrated but as an inner state of mind to be achieved through practicing
Chan. This is a syncretic approach that seeks to reconcile the teachings of the Chan
and Pure Land schools.21 This approach developed mostly during the Ming and
Qing periods and was also the topic of Sheng Yen’s doctoral dissertation. It is there-
fore natural that Sheng Yen followed this approach when constructing his own
teaching.
Yet, in contrast to these two traditional paths of spirituality, Sheng Yen advocates
a renewed interest in the earthly world, seeking to establish a new Pure Land on the

20
Chen Chien-huang 陳劍煌 provides detailed explanations of the related spiritual cultivation in
this context. He explains the concepts of “continuous Pure Mindfuness to obtain Samadhi” and
“entered the flow through hearing and forgot objectives states” and argues the importance of these
concepts in Sheng Yen’s teaching of “building a Pure Land on the earth.” See Chen 2013.
21
Cf. Heng Ching 1992. However, it is important to note that Robert Sharf argues that “Pure Land
cosmology, soteriology, and ritual were always part-and-parcel of Chinese Buddhism in general
and Ch’an monasticism in particular. Accordingly, there was no need for a “synthesis” of Pure
Land and Ch’an. The modern conception of a Chinese Pure Land school with its own patriarchate
and teachings, and the associated notion of Ch’an/Pure Land syncretism, are inordinately influ-
enced by historical developments in Japan and the enduring legacy of sectarian polemics in con-
temporary Japanese scholarship.” See Sharf 2002.
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 433

earth. This is a creative attempt by a faith-based community to engage with issues

of practical concern in a modern society. Under such a new perspective, the empha-
sis is not merely on improving this world so that it becomes a better mundane world,
which will still be abandoned for the Pure Land in the future. Rather, Sheng Yen
calls for the transformation of this mundane, earthly world into a Pure Land. As
mentioned in the previous section, according to the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, if any
Bodhisattva wants to obtain a Pure Land, he or she should purify his/her mind. It is
very often quoted in Buddhist sermons that the world can be purified by following
the purification of the mind. However, it should be noted that the mind referred to in
the Sutra is that of the Bodhisattva rather than the contaminated minds of ordinary
people. In this light, what Sheng Yen is proposing is to transform the mind of ordi-
nary people so that they can become a Bodhisattva themselves. With the compas-
sionate will and power of the Bodhisattva, this mundane world, according to
Buddhist teachings, can be turned into a Pure Land. Consequently, the Pure Land is
not a distinct world totally different from this mundane world. It is not a new cre-
ation that is far from this earth. Rather, this mundane world will become the Pure
Land in the future.
The mundane world serves as a place where people are challenged for spiritual
advancement. Therefore, it is not necessary to escape the earthly world, rather, in
order to challenge oneself sufficiently for spiritual growth, one should be engaged
in the mundane world. This shows a clear spirit of social engagement in Humanistic
Buddhism, which is drastically different from traditional Pure Land Buddhism that
places emphasis on chanting and obtaining rebirth in the Pure Land after one passes
away.

6.3 Framing of Pure Land Discourse

Sheng Yen’s socially engaged discourse is a creative integration of environmental

protection and the Buddhist idea of Pure Land. It reflects an attempt to make the old
doctrine relevant for modern society. The discourse, indeed, provides an important
path for the Buddhist to engage in social issues. Conversely, it is also an important
means of assisting the non-believer in understanding Buddhism. Strategically, the
success and sustainability of social movement depends on the connection and
expansion of its framework. The Buddhist environmental protection movement
adopts a new theoretical framework to explain problems and provide solutions.
Sheng Yen did not limit his discourse to the individual level and tried to organize
social movements such as the “Fivefold Spiritual Renaissance Campaign” (Lin
2004) or “The Six Ethics of the Mind Campaign”,22 promoting his ideas for social

22
The main goals in advocating the Six Ethics of the Mind campaign are to “uplift the character of
humanity and to build a pure land on the earth.” Through six kinds of ethics, the Dharma Drum
Mountain seeks to “achieve purification, peace, happiness and health throughout society in Taiwan
and in the people’s hearts and minds.” See official website: http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/
about/about.aspx?sn=113 Online: 12 September, 2016.
434 W. Y.-n. Ng

changes. I believe that Pure Land discourse provides an integrative framework that
allows Buddhists to deal with different social issues together. Pure Land is a cover-
ing framework connecting traditional Buddhist practices, such as the purification of
the mind, to other social issues. It allows Buddhist beliefs to explain and engage
with modern social problems through a creative hermeneutic. Through such con-
nective efforts, Humanistic Buddhism attracts people interested in environmental
issues to join hands with Buddhist organizations in pursuing their common goal in
relevant social movements. Consequently, through this creative hermeneutic of Pure
Land and the socially engaged framework for social movement, Sheng Yen empow-
ers traditional Buddhist groups, which are often indifferent to practical social prob-
lems. The new framing also attracts and absorbs the activists and power of social
movements and, thus, broadens the social foundation of Buddhism. Under these
circumstances, Dharma Drum Mountain gains more and more support from the
public and becomes one of the four largest bases of Humanistic Buddhism in
Taiwan.

6.4 Problem of Over-Simplification

However, one must be critical enough not to paint too rosy a picture of the move-
ment. Rather, one must note the weaknesses of Sheng Yen’s framing. Sheng Yen
links up spiritual cultivation with the protection of the social and natural environ-
ment. The former is the condition that makes the latter two possible. Spiritual culti-
vation lays down the inner foundation for external protective measures for both
society and the natural environment. For instance, people may lead a life of simplic-
ity that will help solve the environmental crisis resulting from over-consumption.
Therefore, in the four kinds of environmental protection, that is the protection of the
spiritual environment, protection of social environment, protection of the living
environment and the protection of natural environment, the Dharma Drum Mountain
stresses purification. Purification starts from the mind of people with the objective
of leading a simple life and resisting excessive consumption. Sheng Yen says: “our
needs are few; our wants are many” (Sheng Yen 2009: 3). These ideas are clearly
against excessive consumerism, which creates a lot of unnecessary garbage. In addi-
tion to the general concepts of “4R” (reduction, replacement, reuse, and recycling),
the Master extends them to cover the concept of world purification. In addition to
the cleaning of the natural environment, it stresses the purification of the individu-
al’s spirituality and the reduction of the excessive desire for consumption. He
teaches people to lead a simple life and thereby advocates the idea of reduction in
consumption. He also urges people to treasure the things we possess and thus helps
people to accept concepts such as reuse and recycle. All these help people to under-
stand and accept modern environmental ideas and practices backed up by a new
interpretation of Pure Land and Buddhist doctrines.
However, Sheng Yen never challenged modern capitalism, which encourages
over-consumption. He urged people to distinguish need and want but his discourse
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 435

is limited to the individual or psychological aspects, such as one failing to control

one’s desire. My reservation is that changes in individual perception and attitudes,
even though they may contribute to solving the problem, are far from adequate.
Sermons on changing the individual mind-set alone can never solve all environmen-
tal problems. This can be explained through the relationship between agent and
structure.
Anthony Giddens has put forwarded what he calls the “duality structure” in an
attempt to solve the debate between agent and structure. Simply put, he understands
social structures and action theories as two sides of the same coin: structures make
social action possible, but social action creates the structures.23 It is revealing to
employ this dualistic stance in assessing Sheng Yen’s systematic discourse. Sheng
Yen’s attempt to transform society is no doubt a social action, or to be more precise,
a social movement. Through preaching and education, Sheng Yen seeks to show the
meaning of the social actions he intends to achieve and to convince the public to
follow. If people were more knowledgeable about the moral, environmental and
spiritual meanings of the social movement, Sheng Yen believes that they would
change the thought and habits that will eventually not only improve the quality of
life but also establish the Pure Land in the mundane world. However, I think Sheng
Yen places far too much emphasis on the individual’s ability to change social struc-
ture merely through gaining new knowledge and meaning, and acting differently
from the rest of the society. Social and environmental problems cannot be solved by
merely changing the worldview of the people alone.
Sheng Yen seems to overemphasize the power of the agent while not paying
enough attention to that of the social structure and institution. He does not offer a
structural analysis, not to mention a critique, of collusion between government and
capitalists. Simply put, the problem of too much pollution is reduced mainly to a
problem of an impure mind without paying enough attention to social structure and
institution. There is a lack of understanding of the relative autonomy of social and
economic structure. Master Sheng Yen addresses the problem of over-consumption
by urging us to distinguish between want and need, which can never be tackled
without understanding the logic behind. Modern consumption in a capitalist society
is built precisely on stimulating unnecessary want instead of producing to satisfy
minimum need. The logic of modern production attempts to employ instrumental
rationality thoroughly to maximize profit. Mass production is one common way to
meet that end. It, however, can only be sustained through the creation of an ever-­
growing market by stimulating more and more consumption. Whether this con-
sumption is necessary or not is not the primary concern. The problem lies not merely
on the individual preference in his or her consumption but also the structure of the
capitalist production in pushing for the increase of production and consumption.
However, Sheng Yen did not offer any systematic analysis of such a structure of
modern capitalistic economy and the resulting consuming mentality.

23
Giddens says, “By the duality of structure I mean that the structural properties of social systems
are both the medium and the outcome of the practices that constitute those systems.” See Giddens
1979: 69.
436 W. Y.-n. Ng

Sheng Yen follows the traditional Buddhist discourse by putting the emphasis
upon the so-called three root evils. This is a reduction approach in the sense of
reducing social problem to an individual level. The problem lies exactly in the inad-
equacy in addressing many social problems from merely the corruption of individ-
ual mentality and practice. The root evils and market capitalism are simply not just
one and the same issue. Therefore, many socio-economic problems cannot be solved
by reducing to an individual problem.

6.5 Difficult Mission

Sheng Yen’s social movement focuses upon education. He insisted on peaceful

social engagement and never advocated protest and revolution. As the core concept
of this education is to purify the mind through Buddhist teaching in general and
Chan practice in particular, the focus has become more and more on the internal
world, i.e. the mind. If the mind is the source of the problem, this focus is under-
standable. Yet, for the general public, it is difficult to cultivate the mind. The envi-
ronmental movement of Sheng Yen, though it has a noble goal, seems to be more or
less a mission impossible.
Sheng Yen’s social movement of establishing a Pure Land on the earth shows a
strong attempt to rationalize Buddhism. However, not all Buddhists are capable of
pursuing rationalization, which requires educational and cultural capital. Instead,
the supernatural, healing and other mysterious forces are easily accepted. Social
issues like environmental protection are not the primary concern of the majority of
monasteries. People from the lower levels of society in particular generally lack not
only the interest but also the comprehension of these creative interpretations.
Therefore, it is doubtful that the general public, outside of the middle-classes and
intellectuals, would participate in this highly rationalized social movement.

7 Conclusion

Chinese Buddhism experienced a long period of decline from the late nineteenth
century and the rise of Humanistic Buddhism advocated by masters like Tai Xu tried
very hard to modernize and save the religion. Sheng Yen follows this line and
stresses the modernization of Buddhist doctrines. He tries to show the relevance of
the resources of the old tradition in dealing with social issues through a creative
interpretation and employment of the Pure Land doctrinal resources to prevent
Buddhism from being marginalized in the modern world.
Clearly, Sheng Yen tries very hard to provide a Buddhist discourse to justify the
movement. Buddhist terminology and concepts are widely used in his discourse.
Moreover, Sheng Yen makes references to Mahayana Sutras, especially those of the
Pure Land and Chan schools, in constructing his discourse. His new understanding
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 437

of Pure Land demonstrates a continuation of the syncretic tradition of the two

schools of Buddhism. Consequently, on the one hand, Sheng Yen follows the tradi-
tion of the Pure Land school and maintains the objective sense of Pure Land, the
belief of the existence of actual purified place created by the power of the great vow
of various Buddhas. On the other hand, Sheng Yen also follows the tradition of the
Chan school, keeping the subjective sense of Pure Land, and emphasizing the puri-
fication of the internal mind. Therefore, this chapter concludes that the dual empha-
sis of Sheng Yen’s teaching on Pure Land shows a syncretic approach. As a result, if
one thinks in terms of the paired concepts of immanence and transcendence, this
paper suggests that the Pure Land as interpreted by Sheng Yen is both immanent and
transcendent. It is a teaching that places dual emphasis on self-power and other-­
power, a continuation of the mainline understanding of Chinese Pure Land
Buddhism.
But this chapter also points out that Sheng Yen is innovative enough to highlight
the path of establishing the Pure Land not in a place far away or in a purified state
deep inside one’s mind. Rather, he suggests transforming the mundane world into a
Pure Land. This concept of Pure Land differs sharply from the old syncretic tradi-
tion. This ideal can be described as “this-worldly Pure Land”. It is a new orientation
of Humanistic Buddhism, which deviates drastically from the traditional idea of
leaving the mundane world for a world of ultimate happiness. Together with the two
traditional understandings of Pure Land, this paper suggests that there are three
dimensions of Pure Land teaching. In spatial terms, the inner dimension emphasizes
the purification of one’s mind, the vertical dimension emphasizes the transmigration
to the other world, the Pure Land of Amitabha, and, lastly, the horizontal dimension
emphasizes the establishment of Pure Land on the earth. Even though Tai Xu had
proposed the idea of a Humanistic Buddhism that emphasized this-worldly
Buddhism, Sheng Yen is the first to build a systematic discourse on this new under-
standing of Pure Land. Tai Xu criticized the renunciation of this worldly concern
and advocated compassionate concern over the mundane world. Yet, Sheng Yen
does not just place emphasis on concern for this world, he makes it explicit that the
motto of his Dharma Drum Mountain is to establish a Pure Land on the earth.24 The
earth is not taken to be a place where we prepare and wait for the ultimate transmi-
gration to the Pure Land. Rather, the earth itself can be turned to a Pure Land. Since
Sheng Yen teaches all three dimensions of Pure Land, it is appropriate to call Sheng
Yen’s understanding of Pure Land “three dimensional”.

24
Therefore, Sheng Yen wants to transform the world and thus advocates peaceful social movement
through education. Sheng Yen’s creative interpretation actually deviates from traditional Pure Land
belief. His Pure Land ideal on Earth does not resemble the Amitābhist tradition which emphasizes
the transmigration to the other world, the Pure Land of Amitābha. There are signs to show that
Sheng Yen makes use of the tradition of the Future Buddha, Maitreya. The Sutra of Maitreya’s
Descent talks about the descent of the future Buddha, Maitreya, to this earthly world and works
towards the building of a Pure Land on it. Therefore, Maitreya, instead of Amitābha, Buddha is
commonly used by people to provide a Buddhist justification for social changes or even
revolution.
438 W. Y.-n. Ng

Although earlier masters advocated such a this-worldly turn, it is Sheng Yen who
provides a systematic discourse with a practical plan of actions seeking to actualize
this ideal. Sheng Yen’s discourse has a clear intention to promote a Buddhist peace-
ful social movement based upon the spirit of Mahayana Buddhism through a cre-
ative hermeneutic and reinterpretation of Pure Land, making use of the emphasis on
the cultivation of the mind in Chan and connecting this Chan training with the goal
of purifying this earthly world.
Doctrinally, this brings together the two major Buddhist schools. Sheng Yen’s
creative interpretation follows the syncretic tradition and advocates the spirit of
Mahayana Buddhism. This has two major implications. Firstly, the merging of Chan
elements into Pure Land belief carries a strong emphasis upon the cultivation of the
mind, which is based upon the belief in the universality of Buddhist nature in all
sentient beings. Secondly, the idea of purifying the world leads to a socially engaged
Buddhism, or, in spatial terms, the horizontal dimension of Pure Land Buddhism.
Sheng Yen’s Pure Land discourse is the first systematic framing of a socially
engaged Buddhism. He begins his grand system of peaceful social movement with
the environmental protection of one’s mind and incorporates different social, ethical
and environmental issues together under the umbrella concept of Pure Land. This
approach overemphasizes the power of the agent while not paying enough attention
to that of the social structure. A structural analysis of society is not provided, let
alone a critique of the collusion between government and capitalists. Therefore, the
limitation of this kind of socially engaged Buddhism is clear. Its reliance on preach-
ing and teaching the public to restore and keep a moral and religious inner life and,
thus, be friendly to other people and the environment, though engrossed with very
noble aims, seems to be inadequate to cope with the problems in society today.

References

Bingenheimer, Marcus. 2007. “Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian Fojiao (人間佛教) and
the Contribution of Venerable Yin Shun to Chinese Buddhist Modernism.” In Mutsu Hsu,
Jinhua Chen and Lori Meeks, eds., Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Hualian: Tzuchi University Press, 141–161.
Chandler, Stuart. 2004. Establishing a Pure Land on Earth: The Foguang Buddhist Perspective on
Modernization and Globalization. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Chen Chien-huang 陳劍煌. 2013. “Master Sheng Yen’s Explanation of ‘Apprehension of
Continuous Pure Mindfulness to Obtain Samadhi’ and ‘Entered the Flow through Hearing and
Forgot Objective States’.” In Sheng Yen Yanjiu 聖嚴研究 (Studies on Sheng Yen) 4: 74–130.
Chen Yangjiong 陳揚炯. 2000. Zhongguo Jingtu Tongshi 中國淨土通史 (A General History of
Chinese Pure Land). Jiangsu; Jiangsu Guji Chubanshe.
Clippard, Seth. 2012. Protecting the Spiritual Environment: Rhetoric and Chinese Buddhist
Environmentalism. PhD Dissertation. Arizona State University.
FUJITA Kotatsu 藤田宏達. 1970. Genshi Jodo Shiso no kenkyu 原始淨土思想の研究 (Studies in
the Primitive Thought of Pure Land). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
———. 2005. “Pure and Impure Lands.” Trans. by Kenneth K. Tanaka. In Lindsay Jones, ed.,
Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd Ed. Vol.11. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 7502–7503.
18 Pure Land and the Environmental Movement in Humanistic Buddhism 439

Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London and Basingstoke: The
Macmillan Press.
Haneda, Nobou. 2016. “What is Pure Land?” Available at: http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.
Dharma.Articles/WhatIsPureLand-Haneda.html On-line: 3 September, 2017.
Hartshorne, Charles. 2005. “Transcendence and Immanence.” In Lindsay Jones, ed., The
Encyclopedia of Religions. 2nd Ed. Vol 13. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 9281–9286.
Heng Ching. 1992. The Syncretism of Ch’an and Pure Land Buddhism. New York: Peter Lang.
Huimin 惠敏. 1997. “On To the Extent that the Mind of a Bodhisattva is Pure is his Buddha-land
Purified.” In Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 10: 25–44.
Jones, Charles B. 1999. Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State: 1660–1990. Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Lin Yiren 林益仁. 2004. “Huanjing Shijian de Quanqiu yu Zaidi Bianzheng: Yi Fagushan de
Huanbao Lunshu Weili 環境實踐的全球與在地辯証: 以法鼓山的環保論述為例 (The
Dialectical Relationship between Global and Local Environmental Practices: An Example of
the Discourse on Environmental Protection by the Dharma Drum Mountain).” Taiwan Shehui
Yanjiu Jikan 台灣社會研究季刊 A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies 55: 1–46.
Luk, Charles 陸寬昱, trans. 1972. The Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, Boston: Shambhala.
Mochizuki Shinko 望月信亨. 1975. Shina jōdo kyōri shi 支那淨土敎理史 (A History of the
Teachings of Chinese Jingtu). Kyōto: Hōzōkan.
Moltmann, Jurgen. 1993. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Trans. by Margaret
Kohof. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Nattier, Jan. 2008, A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern
Han and Three Kingdoms Periods. International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology,
Soka University.
Oxtoby, Willard G. ed. 1996. World Religions: Eastern Traditions. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Payne, Richard K. and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 2004. Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis
in the Cult of Amitābha. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Sharf, Robert. 2002. “On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch’an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval
China.” Toung Pao 88.4–5: 282–331.
Sheng Yen. 1999. “Fagushan de Gongshi 法鼓山的共識 (The Consensus of Dharma Drum
Mountain).” In Fagushan de Fangxiang 法鼓山的方向 (The Direction of Dharma Drum
Mountain). Taibei: Fagu Wenhua, 81–89.
Sheng Yen. 1997. “Sizhong Jingtu Ren Jun You 四種淨土任君遊 (Four kinds of Pure Land for You
to Wander.” In Sheng Yen, Nianfo Sheng Jingtu 念佛生淨土 (Chanting the Name of Buddha
and being reborn into Pure Land). Taibei: Fagu Wenhua, 25–34.
Sheng Yen. 2001. Liangqiannian de Xingjiao 兩千年的行腳 (The Journey in 2000 years). Taibei:
Fagushan Press.
Sheng Yen. 2003. Jingtu Zai Renjian 淨土在人間 (Pure Land on the Earth). Taibei: Fagu Wenhua.
Sheng Yen. 2009. 108 Adages of Wisdom (I). Taipei: Sheng Yen Education Foundation.
Sheng Yen. 2014. Xuezhong Zuji: Shengyan Fashi Zizhuan 雪中足跡:聖嚴法師自傳 (Footprints
in the Snow: The Autobioigraphy of Monk Sheng Yen ). Hong Kong: Crown Publishing (HK)
Ltd. This is a revised Chinese edition of The Autobiography of Monk Sheng Yen: Footprints in
the Snow. New York: Double Day, 2008.
Silk, Johnathan A. 2015. “Mahayana Buddhism” in Encyclopedia Britannia, Available at: https://
global.britannica.com/topic/Mahayana#ref942467.
Stevenson, Daniel. 1995. “Pure Land Buddhist Worship and Meditation in China.” In Donald
S. Lopez, Jr. ed., Buddhism in Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 359–379.
Suzuki, D. T. 1925. “The Development of the Pure Land Doctrine in Buddhism.” Eastern Buddhist
3: 285–326.
Tanaka, Kenneth K. 1987. “Where is the Pure Land?: Controversy in Chinese Buddhism on the
Nature of Pure Land.” Pacific World, n.s., 3: 36–45.
Thomson, Laurence. 1989. Chinese Religions: An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
440 W. Y.-n. Ng

Wu, John C. H. 2003. The Golden Age of Zen: Zen Masters of the Tang Dynasty. New York: World
Wisdom.
Yin Shun 印順. 1987. “Wuzheng Zhibian 無諍之辯 (Debate without Admonition).” In Yin Shun,
Miaoyun Ji 妙雲集 (Collection of Wonderful Clouds), Vol. 7. Taibei: Zhengwen Press.
Yin Shun 印順. 1992. Jingtu yu Chan 淨土與禪 (Pure Land and Chan Buddhism). Taibei:
Zhengwen Press.
Yin Shun 印順. 1993. “Qili Qiji Zhi Renjian Fojiao 契理契機之人間佛教.” In Yin Shun, Huayu
Ji 華雨集 (Collection of Flowers and Rain), Vol. 4. Taibei: Zhengwen Press.

William Yau-nang Ng received his PhD on comparative religious philosophy at the University of
Toronto. He works on contemporary Confucianism, Buddhism, and interreligious dialogue. He is
currently an Associate Professor and the Associate Head of the Department of Religion and
Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University and also serves as the Vice-President of the Academy
of Chinese Buddhism. He is the author of Comparative Horizon: Discourses on Contemporary
Philosophy in Hong Kong and Taiwan (Taipei: Liberal Arts Press, 2009) and Penetrating into
Hundred Schools of Thought: A Study of Lao Siguang (Taipei: Liberal Arts Press, 1999); editor of
The Blossoming of Lotus: Collected Essays on the True Buddha School (Taipei: Liberal Arts Press,
2016); and co-editor of Paul Tillich and Asian Religions (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2017), Whole-
Person Education: Sino-­Western Dialogue (Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University Press,
2017), and Whose Utopia? Reflections and Dialectical Development in Five Hundred Years
(Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University Press, 2017). He is one of the four Chinese translators
of Wing-tsit Chan’s Source Book of Chinese Philosophy and the co-translator of Julia Ching’s
Confucianism and Christianity.