Genshin's Ōjōyōshū and the Construction of Pure Land Discourse in Heian Japan by Robert F. Rhodes (review)

In 1017, the monk Genshin 源信 plucked his nose hairs, rinsed his mouth, gripped strings tied to an image of Amitābha Buddha (Amida Butsu 阿彌陀佛), and passed away (p. 179). One thousand years later, Robert Rhodes published a fitting tribute, a learned, landmark study of Genshin and his most famous work, the Ōjōyōshū 往生要集. It is the first monograph on Genshin in English since Allan Andrews's 1973 book.¹ Rhodes's monograph builds upon other works of anglophone scholarship including a classic partial translation and a 2001 dissertation.² It also joins a rich tradition of Japanese-language scholarship and a 2017 exhibition on Genshin at the Nara 奈良 National Museum. Rhodes's tour de force should be required reading for all scholars of premodern Japan and of the Pure Land tradition.

The book contains three parts roughly classified as background, biography, and textual analysis of the Ōjōyōshū, as well as a succinct introduction and conclusion. Chapter 1 opens with an accessible overview of Pure Land scriptures. The bulk takes up Chinese exegetes, especially those who influenced Genshin. Alongside familiar mythologized Pure Land patriarchs, such as Tanluan 曇鸞 and Daochuo 道綽, Rhodes assesses Chinese Tiantai 天台 (J. Tendai) Pure Land thought including texts by and attributed to Zhiyi 智顗. Rhodes should be applauded for discussing these previously neglected Tiantai texts.³ At the same time, Korea's absence surprises me. As citations throughout this study show, monks from Silla 新羅, such as Ŭijŏk 義寂, Kyŏnghŭng 憬興, and Wŏnhyo 元曉, were referenced frequently by Japanese monks including Genshin (pp. 46, 99–100, 283–84, and 359n45).⁴ Since Rhodes succeeds in broadening our perspective beyond the so-called patriarchs, future scholars would do well to abandon the India–China–Japan transmission model that elides Korea. Silla monks too shaped the Japanese tradition.

Chapter 2 turns to Pure Land Buddhism in Japan. The initial historical narrative follows Inoue Mitsusada's 井上光貞 classic study.⁵ The key plot stems from the idea that Nara-period (710–784) Pure Land Buddhism was largely limited to mortuary practices; only in subsequent eras did individuals aspire to their own birth in the Pure Land. For Inoue, this obsession with postmortem ritual represents an inauthentic form of belief, shackled by its purportedly magical (jujutsu teki 呪術的) qualities, to be overcome by later thinkers. Recent scholarship by Nakano Satoshi 中野聰 and others question this narrative and identify earlier evidence of aspiration for one's own birth in the Pure Land.⁶ These works suggest more revision to Inoue's narrative is required than that presented in Rhodes's monograph. The chapter ends with a thoughtful reading of Chikō's 智光 reconstructed Muryōjukyōron shaku 無量壽經論釋. This commentary foreshadows several sources of dispute in subsequent periods, such as mental versus vocal nenbutsu 念仏 (nembutsu) as well as the possibility of birth in the Pure Land for evil men.

Chapter 3 surveys the spread of Pure Land Buddhism in the Heian period (794–1185). Rhodes cites increasing evidence of aspiration for one's own birth in the Pure Land at this time. He also highlights the centrality of Enryakuji 延暦寺 on Mount Hiei 比叡 and argues that Pure Land practice grew into a widespread movement, transcending boundaries of social class. And he compellingly demonstrates that Heian Buddhism maintained a "pluralistic approach to salvation" (p. 60). Individuals participated in a range of practices and invoked deities not limited to Amitābha. In addition to illuminating the contributions of well-known figures such as Ennin 圓仁, Yoshishige no Yasutane 慶滋保胤, and Kūya 空也, Rhodes uncovers the writings of less famous individuals such as the Sanron 三論 monk Ryūkai 隆海, who blended esoteric and Pure Land practices.

Chapter 4 deals with two Tendai monks previously studied in Japanese but largely ignored in English: Zenyu 禪瑜 and Senkan 千觀. Zenyu's work captures a number of aspects central to Japanese Pure Land discourse...