Can People with Dementia or Memory Loss Attain Rebirth in the Pure Land?

When someone develops senile dementia or loses their memory, such a person has relatively heavy karmic obstructions, mainly because obstructions have appeared in the brain. Although this obstructs the function of the mind consciousness, if in their daily recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti) they have already well-perfumed the manas and eliminated a large portion of their karmic obstructions, and can remain in the samādhi of Buddha-recollection, being able to think of Amitābha Buddha at all times, how could such a person develop senile dementia? How could they lose their memory? For a person with merit and only slight karmic obstructions, how could they get dementia, how could they lose their memory?

When someone is demented and has lost their memory, if they cannot even recognize their own dearest son, and no longer even know their own surname, then they certainly cannot bring the Buddha to mind—can they still recollect the Buddha? Compared with the Buddha, who is dearer to them, the Buddha or their own son? Of course their son is dearer. If they cannot even recall their dearest son, how could they bring the Buddha to mind? The very fact that they have developed senile dementia or amnesia shows that they did not have Amitābha Buddha in their mind, that they did not eliminate karmic obstructions through recollecting the Buddha, and that the recollection of the Buddha was never perfumed into the manas—that is why they became demented. If the recollection of the Buddha had been perfumed into the manas, and their mind were filled with Amitābha Buddha, how could they become demented? They also could not lose their memory—with their mind full of the Buddha and a large portion of their karmic obstructions eliminated, with the Buddha's power blessing them, how could they lose their memory? Since they cannot even bring the Buddha to mind, how could they be reborn in the Pure Land? Even normal people, even people with meditative concentration (samādhi), are not necessarily able to achieve rebirth there. Rebirth in the Pure Land is extremely difficult—not easier than attaining the fruits of realization or enlightenment.

Only the Dharma that one has personally experienced and then spoken of is reliable. Without personal experience, relying on textual interpretation and one's own imagination about how things might be—having never actually accomplished any of it—how could there be any guarantee? That is unreliable. If I were to teach about the Pure Land and rebirth there, I would have to teach according to those few points in the Buddhist sutras; apart from the sutras, I would not dare to speak. Because I have never been reborn in the Pure Land and do not know exactly what conditions allow rebirth there, I can only rely on the Buddhist sutras in my teaching. Unless I recollected the Buddha to the point that the Buddha gave me a guarantee—saying that no matter what happens at my deathbed, I would certainly be able to maintain right mindfulness and certainly achieve rebirth—only then would it be credible; everything else is not credible.

Now, for the Pure Land school to teach the Dharma and gather people to achieve rebirth there, the only person most qualified and most suitable is Master Huiyuan, the First Patriarch of the Pure Land school. If he were to lead everyone in Pure Land practice, every teaching would inspire faith and acceptance, every teaching would be trustworthy. When he says that practicing in such a way will certainly lead to rebirth, or that recollecting the Buddha in such a manner will certainly lead to rebirth, his words are all credible, while the teachings of everyone else are not credible. Why are the words of Huiyuan, the First Patriarch of the Pure Land school, credible? Because he personally practiced the Pure Land path and succeeded. When he practiced the Pure Land path, his body and mind were always in samādhi; Amitābha Buddha personally appeared several times within his samādhi, and the scenery of the Pure Land of Bliss (sukhāvatī) also appeared several times within his samādhi. He constantly remained in the state of samādhi without emerging from it—his rebirth in the Pure Land was certain beyond doubt.

Therefore, based on his experience in cultivating meditative concentration and wisdom, only when he says how one can achieve rebirth are his words certain and credible, because he cultivated to that level and he has the experience; anyone without such experience is not credible. By the same token, some people teach about seeing the mind and enlightenment, but because they have never experienced genuine enlightenment, what they say about seeing the mind and enlightenment is also not credible. Their theories about seeing the mind and enlightenment may be right or may be wrong, but even if the theory is right, in practice they still cannot truly become enlightened—after all, they have never personally experienced it, and since their practice is incorrect, what they say is unreliable. Anyone who spreads the Dharma must have personally cultivated and walked that path; only then is what they teach reliable—everything else is unreliable. Those who spread the Pure Land teachings have not the slightest experience regarding the matter of achieving rebirth through recollecting the Buddha; therefore, their claims that recollecting the Buddha in such-and-such a way will definitely lead to rebirth are all untrustworthy. Only the Buddhist sutras are most trustworthy; apart from the Pure Land sutras, all talk of rebirth is mere conjecture and fantasy.