Honen emphazised that, in regard to Pureland, oral teachings are just as important as the written teachings. He said that because, the Buddha was talking to an audience of “good” people in the sutras, one might “deprecate themselves” and have doubts about their own ability to realize the Pure Land. Honen found it important for ordinary people to know that though the Buddha was speaking to “good” or saintly people, the Pure Land teaching was still applicable to the ordinary person (Honen the Buddhist Saint, 2006).
I have never thought of this as an issue before, however what I do take from the above is that encounters with spiritual friends are just as important as reading. A more modern view might be that oral teaching is a person-to-person teaching, which may take many forms. This allows for someone with experience to make the text more relatable and inclusive to another. Having been given Dharma in both forms, one can then develop a deep understanding of their own. For example, I’m mostly paraphrasing a particular translation of the above teaching because I find that the translation itself uses language that might be off-putting to some. In this review I’m also elaborating on the term “oral teaching” for a more inclusive understanding. In a sense, this approach follows the spirit of Honen by keeping the audience in mind. This is what we call upaya or skillful means.
Namo Amida Bu
Reference:
Honen the Buddhist Saint: Essential Writings and Official Biography (2006) World Wisdom, Inc.
Image from Pixabay
