Thank you and enjoyed your article as it gave me more enlightenment on shin.

Paul Shaper

Yes, sorry. The last word in the paragraph was “…spiritually and materially.” I don’t know where that went

was this sentence, in paragraph five accidentally truncated? “Our practice, then, stops being about getting Buddhahood for ourselves, and instead is refocused to be about expressing gratitude for all that we have received, spiritually and”

gassho.

Including the marginal raises high stake politics.Regional loyalties, cast or class affiliations can, as you know, vye with noble truths. In regard to any belief, I usually test the vitality of the doctrine by asking who’s In & whose Out. If there are too many ‘Outs’, I think something is wrong.

It is nice to know that modern Shin are not adverse to an ‘activist buddhism’. Given what you said, it is possible that the Ainu and third generation Koreans are open to Pure Land Buddhism.

Buddha himself, in one opinion,was a great reformer within the Hindu Tradition. Luther’s
polemics, Voltaire’s sarcasm, taught the Church on the dangers of forgetting the Gospel. And the Mitnagdin of Lithuania were met with the charismatic tide of Bal Shem Tov,which gave a new impulse to the words Hasidism and Judaism. But, as side note, it would be nice to know if modern Shin, since its numerical success, has negated any dynamic contemporary issues-for exmple, the issues of racism or social inequaltiy in today’s Japan.

If so, what School and for what reasons? Implied, or hinted at, is the idea that ‘Shin’ are more egalitarian. As if the Shin Buddhist, like East Asian Non-Conformist, were Quakers within the Pure Land tradition. I’m assuming, kindly, that this movement was a extreme understanding of traditional doctrines.

First, I would recommend three books that are suitable for the beginner in Shin Buddhism, but also quite good in their own right, and available in cheap editions:

Taitetsu Unno, “River of Water, River of Fire.” (Image, 1998)

D.T. Suzuki, “Buddha of Infinite Light.” (Shambhala, 2002)

Taitetsu Unno, “Shin Buddhism.” (Image, 2002)

After that, if you want something a little more advanced, I would recommend:

Alfred Bloom, “The Essential Shinran.” (World Wisdom, 2007)

Of course, you might find my latest book useful as well. It will be out from Wisdom very soon:

Jeff Wilson, “Buddhism of the Heart.” (Wisdom, 2009)

You can get all of these from Amazon or through your local bookstore, they are all still in print.

As for my email, I’d rather not post it since inevitably spambots will pick it up and start sending me junk mail. Instead, you could send a note to Brian (the host of Daily Buddhism) and ask him to forward it to me, that way I’d get your contact info and be able to respond to you directly.

Could you possibly send me your email address? I’d like to ask you some more questions about this particular school of Pure Land, in which I am very interested. Are their specific books and/or authors one should consult to learn more?

Thanks,
Chris

Shin (more formally, Jodo Shinshu), is one school of Pure Land. It is the largest school in Japan and is further subdivided in to 10 basic sects, the largest of which (Nishi Honganji), has flourished in the West since the late 19th century. Another large school of Pure Land is Jodo Shu, which is the second biggest Buddhist school in Japan (after Shin). It’s presence in the West is very small compared to its size and historical importance in Asia. There are yet other Japanese schools of Pure Land Buddhism, as well as other schools in China, Korea, etc. And beyond formally Pure Land-based schools, there are large influences of Pure Land practices and motifs on other forms of Buddhism, including Zen and Tibetan Buddhism.

In other words, your question is like asking the difference between Presbyterianism and Protestant Christianity: just as Presbyterianism is a type of Protestant Christianity, Shin is a type of Pure Land Buddhism.

Hope this helped!