Was Calvin a Pure Land Buddhist?
The concept of "salvation by faith alone" (sola fide) in John Calvin’s theology and the path to salvation in Pure Land Buddhism, centered on faith in Amitābha Buddha, share striking similarities at their core, particularly in their reliance on an external power for salvation. Calvin’s doctrine, a cornerstone of Reformed Protestantism, asserts that humans are inherently sinful and incapable of earning salvation through works; only faith in God’s grace, bestowed through Christ’s atonement, ensures eternal life. Similarly, Pure Land Buddhism, especially in its Japanese Jōdo Shinshū form, teaches that individuals cannot achieve enlightenment through their own efforts (jiriki, or self-power) due to the spiritual limitations of the current degenerate age (mappō). Instead, devotees rely on the “other-power” (tariki) of Amitābha Buddha, who vowed to grant rebirth in his Pure Land—a realm conducive to enlightenment—to those who sincerely recite his name (nembutsu: “Namu Amida Butsu”) with faith. Both systems emphasize trust in a higher power’s grace over personal merit, suggesting a parallel in their rejection of self-reliant paths to salvation.
However, the theological and cultural contexts of these traditions reveal significant differences in their understanding of “faith” and its role. In Calvin’s framework, faith is a divinely granted gift, rooted in a monotheistic relationship with a personal God who predestines individuals for salvation or damnation. This faith involves intellectual assent to Christ’s redemptive work and a personal trust in God’s promise, often accompanied by a transformative inner conviction. In contrast, Pure Land’s faith in Amitābha is less about intellectual belief in a creator God and more about entrusting oneself to Amitābha’s compassionate vow, often expressed through the simple act of reciting his name. For Shinran, the founder of Jōdo Shinshū, this faith (shinjin) arises from Amitābha’s grace and is not a human achievement, but it lacks the Calvinist emphasis on predestination or a singular divine judgment. Instead, Pure Land’s faith is more inclusive, promising salvation to all who call on Amitābha, regardless of moral or spiritual standing, reflecting a universalist tendency absent in Calvin’s stricter theology.
The soteriological outcomes of these paths further highlight both convergence and divergence. In Calvinism, salvation by faith alone leads to eternal communion with God in heaven, a state of divine fellowship for the elect. The focus is on justification—being declared righteous before God—achieved solely through faith in Christ’s sacrifice. Pure Land Buddhism, however, aims for rebirth in the Western Pure Land, a paradisiacal realm where conditions are ideal for attaining nirvana, the cessation of suffering and realization of ultimate reality. While Calvinist salvation is final and eternal, Pure Land’s rebirth is a step toward enlightenment, not the ultimate goal itself, as practitioners still progress toward nirvana in the Pure Land. Both traditions, however, share the idea that the faithful are transported to a higher state through divine intervention, not personal effort, underscoring a reliance on grace as the mechanism for transcending human limitations.
Despite these parallels, the metaphysical frameworks and practices diverge significantly. Calvin’s sola fide operates within a Christian worldview where God is the sole creator and judge, and faith is directed toward a historical event (Christ’s crucifixion) and a personal relationship with God. The practice of faith often involves prayer, scripture study, and participation in church sacraments, though these are secondary to faith itself. Pure Land Buddhism, rooted in Mahāyāna cosmology, sees Amitābha as one of many Buddhas, not a creator deity, and the nembutsu practice is a devotional act that can be performed by anyone, often without requiring deep doctrinal knowledge or monastic discipline. This accessibility led figures like Alan Watts to call Pure Land the “easy way,” a label less applicable to Calvinism’s rigorous theological demands and emphasis on personal conviction. Moreover, Pure Land’s non-dualistic tendencies, where the self and Amitābha’s grace are ultimately inseparable, contrast with Calvinism’s clear distinction between creator and creation.
In essence, while both Calvin’s “salvation by faith alone” and Pure Land Buddhism’s path to enlightenment emphasize reliance on a higher power’s grace over human effort, their differences in theology, practice, and ultimate goals prevent a complete equivalence. Both systems democratize salvation by making it accessible through faith rather than works, appealing to those who feel incapable of achieving spiritual goals through personal striving. Yet Calvinism’s monotheistic, predestinarian framework and focus on eternal justification differ from Pure Land’s Mahāyāna universalism and its intermediate goal of rebirth in a conducive realm. At their root, both share a profound trust in grace as the sole means of transcending human frailty, but their expressions of faith and their visions of salvation reflect distinct cultural and philosophical worlds.
