Can Those with Dementia or Amnesia Attain Rebirth?

People who suffer from senile dementia or memory loss have relatively heavy karmic obstructions; the main problem is an obstruction 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-conditioned the manas and eliminated a large portion of their karmic obstructions, and can abide in the samādhi of Buddha-recollection, being able to be mindful of Amitābha Buddha at all times, how could they get senile dementia? How could they lose their memory? How could a person with merit and only slight karmic obstructions get senile dementia or lose their memory?

When someone is demented and has lost their memory, if they cannot even recognize their own dearest son and no longer 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, their own son or the Buddha? Of course the 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 contracted senile dementia or amnesia shows that there was no Amitābha Buddha in their mind, that they did not eliminate karmic obstructions through recollecting the Buddha, and that the recollection was never conditioned into the manas—that is why they became demented. If the Buddha-recollection had been conditioned into the manas, and their mind were filled with Amitābha Buddha, how could they become demented? Nor could they 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 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 attain rebirth there. Rebirth is extremely difficult—not any easier than attaining realization of the fruits or enlightenment.

Only 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 it oneself—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 sūtras; apart from the sūtras, I would not dare to speak. Because I have never experienced rebirth in the Pure Land and do not know exactly under what conditions rebirth can occur, I can only rely on the sūtras. Unless I recollected the Buddha to the point that the Buddha gave me a guarantee—saying that no matter what happens at my death, I would surely maintain right mindfulness and surely attain rebirth—only then would it be credible; everything else is not credible.

So, for the Pure Land school to teach the Dharma and gather people to attain rebirth, the most qualified and suitable person was only the school's first patriarch, Master Huiyuan. When he led everyone in Pure Land practice, every dharma he taught inspired faith and acceptance, and every dharma was trustworthy. When he said that practicing in a certain way would surely lead to rebirth, or that recollecting the Buddha in a certain way would surely lead to rebirth, his words were all credible, while the teachings of everyone else are not. Why were 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, his body and mind were always abiding 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 abided in the state of samādhi without emerging from it; his rebirth was certain beyond doubt.

Therefore, based on his experience of meditative concentration and wisdom, only when he said how rebirth could be attained were his words definitively credible, because he had cultivated to that level and had the experience. Those without experience are not credible. Likewise, some people speak about seeing one's true mind and enlightenment; because they have never experienced genuine enlightenment, what they say about it is also not credible. Their theories about seeing the true 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. Their practice is incorrect, so what they say is unreliable. Anyone who spreads the Dharma must have personally cultivated and walked that stretch of the path; only then is what they teach reliable—everything else is unreliable. Those who spread the Pure Land teaching have not the slightest experience regarding rebirth through Buddha-recollection, so their claims that reciting in such-and-such a way will surely lead to rebirth are all untrustworthy. Only the Buddhist sūtras are most trustworthy; apart from the Pure Land sūtras, all talk of rebirth is mere conjecture and fantasy.