Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Pure Land is valid from a Mahayana perspective, so the OP basically amounts to "is Mahayana legitimate or not?".
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
For those interested on a Mahayana take, here's an interesting dialogue on the subject between John Blofeld, an early scholar and translator (Tilt met him, I believe) and Ven Hsu Yun, a major figure of 20th Century Chan (Zen). (It incidentally illustrates the Chan/Zen dialogue to some extent and may shed light on the seemingly abstruse culture of koans.)Lazy_eye wrote:Pure Land is valid from a Mahayana perspective, so the OP basically amounts to "is Mahayana legitimate or not?".
http://chanbuddhismuk.proboards.com/thr ... eld?page=1
'The present Abbott was no other than the Venerable Xu Yun, who was believed to be well over a hundred years old, though still able to walk as much thirty miles a day. He was renowned all over China as the greatest living Master of Zen; so I was delighted to hear the unexpected news that he had just returned after an absence of several months spent in a distant province. Not long after my arrival, I excitedly followed the Reverend Receiver of Guests to pay my respects to this almost mythical personage. I beheld a middle-sized man with a short, wispy beard and remarkably penetrating eyes. He was not precisely youthful-looking as I had been led to expect, but had one of those ageless faces not uncommon in China. Nobody could have guessed that he was already a centenarian. Finding myself in his presence, I became virtually tongue-tied and had to rack my brains for something to say, although there was so much I could profitably have asked him.
At last, I managed to ask:
'Is this famous monastery purely Zen, Your Reverence?
'Oh yes,' he answered in a surprisingly vigorous voice. 'It is a great centre of Zen.'
'So you do not worship Amida Buddha or keep his statue here?'
The question seemed to puzzle him, for he took sometime to reply.
'But certainly we keep his statue here. Every morning and evening we perform rites before it and repeat the sacred the sacred name while circumambulating the altar.'
'Then the monastery is not purely Zen,' I persisted, puzzled in my turn.
'Why not? It is like every other Zen monastery in China. Why should it be different? Hundreds of years ago there were many sects, but the teachings have long been synthesised - which is as it should be. If by Zen you mean the practice of Zen meditation, why, that is the very essence of Buddhism. It leads to a direct perception of Reality in this life, enabling us to transcend duality and go straight to the One Mind. This One Mind, otherwise known as our Original Nature, belongs to everybody and everything. But the method is very hard - hard even for those who practise it night and day for years on end. How many people are prepared or even able to do that? The monastery also has to serve the needs of simple people, illiterate people. How many of them would understand if we taught only the highest method? I speak of the farmers on our own land here and of the simple pilgrims who come for the great annual festivals. To them we offer that other way - repetition of the sacred name - which is yet the same way adapted for simple minds. They believe that by such reptition they will gain the Western Paradise and ther receive divine teaching from Amida Buddha himself - teaching which will lead them directly to Nirvana.'
At once reluctantly and somewhat daringly I answered: 'I see. But isn't that a kind of - well, a sort of - of - er - deception? Good, no doubt, but - '
I broke off, not so much in confusion as because the Venerable Xu Yun was roaring with laughter.
'Deception? Deception? Ha, ha, ha, ha - ha! Not at all. Not a bit. No, of course not.'
'Then, Your Reverence, if you too believe in the Western Heaven and so on, why do you trouble to teach the much harder road to Zen?'
'I do not understand the distinction you are making. They are identical.'
'But - '
'Listen, Mr P'u. Zen manifests self-strength; Amidism manifests other-strength. You rely on your own efforts, or you rely on the saving power of Amida. Is that right?'
'Yes. But they are - I mean, they seem - entirely different from each other.'
I became aware that some of the other monks were beginning to look at me coldly, as though I were showing unpardonable rudeness in pertinaciously arguing with this renowned scholar and saint; but the Master, who was quite unperturbed, seemed to be enjoying himself.
'Why insist so much on this difference?' he asked. 'You know that in reality there is nought but the One Mind. You may choose to regard it as in you or out of you, but "in" and "out" have no ultimate significance - just as you, Mr P'u, and I and Amida Buddha have no real separateness. In ordinary life, self is self and other is other; in reality they are the same. Take Bodhidharma who sat for nine years in front of a blank wall. What did he contemplate? What did he see? Nothing but his Original Self, the true Self beyond duality. Thus he saw Reality face to face. He was thereby freed from the Wheel and entered Nirvana, never to be reborn - unless voluntarily as a Bodhisattva.'
'Yet, Reverence, I do not think that Bodhidharma spoke of Amida. Or am I wrong?'
'True, true. He did not. But when Farmer Wang comes to me for teaching, am I to speak to him of his Original Self or of Reality and so on? What do such terms mean to him? Morning and evening, he repeats the sacred name, concentrating on it until he grows oblivious of all else. Even in the fields, as he stoops to tend the rice, he repeats the name. In time, after a month, a year, a decade, a lifetime or several life times, he achieves such a state of perfect concentration that duality is transcended and he, too, comes face to face with Reality. He calls the power by which he hopes to achieve this Amida; you call it Zen; I my call it Original Mind. What is the difference? The power he thought was outside him self was inside all the time.'
Deeply struck by this argument and anxious, perhaps, to display my acquaintance with the Zen way of putting things, I exclaimed:
'I see, I see. Bodhidharma entered the shrine-room from the sitting-room. Farmer Wang entered it through the kitchen, but they both arrived at the same place. I see.'
'No,' answered the Zen Master, 'you do not see. They didn't arrive at any place. They just discovered there is no place for them to reach.'
This reply made me feel proud of myself. It seemed I had grasped the point correctly, for the Master had condescended to answer with one of those Zen paradoxes which force the hearer into even deeper understanding. Hs broad smile was enough to show that he was really satisfied with my reply.
'After all,' I added complacently, 'it's all a matter of words.'
Instead of nodding approvingly, the Venerable Xu Yun turned away from me suddenly and began speaking on quite a different subject to one of his disciples. His withdrawal was so pointed that, for a moment, I felt hurt as by a harsh snub. Then I saw the point and almost laughed aloud. 'Of course that's it,' I said to myself. 'The significance of that turning away is as clear as clear can be. It means, "On the contrary, it is all a matter of no words - silence." Of course that was it.' I prostrated myself and walked out to find the room allotted to me for the night.'
_/|\_
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Because of the popularity of Pure Land, Hui Neng and other apologists of Mahayana gave new interpretations to the practice to make it compatible to the meditation schools. These interpretations were their own. There are no sutras that say Pure Land exist in the mind ( unless one takes Hui Neng's Platform Sutra to be a sutra). One might as well say chanting Coca Cola will bring one to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's kingdom and then ask if that is a legitimate practice. This too exists in the mind and getting people to chant this mantra is just skilful means.
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Well, mind is what we work with, in Buddhism, I thought. Where else is the change to take place?
Last edited by Dan74 on Mon May 26, 2014 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
What we work with is the Dhamma of the historical Buddha, not the ...well, Dharma, I guess, of ahistorical trans-Buddhas.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Really? Not the mind here and now?? Where is this "Dhamma of the historical Buddha, not the ...well, Dharma, I guess, of ahistorical trans-Buddhas" here and now, Dave, but concepts in your mind? Are they not useful only insofar as they aid in developing wholesome qualities, grounds for practice, insight and release? Or have you made them objects of Refuge, Fixed Views, a fetter?daverupa wrote:What we work with is the Dhamma of the historical Buddha, not the ...well, Dharma, I guess, of ahistorical trans-Buddhas.
_/|\_
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Here is the problem: these criteria are indeed valid ones, but they are so as defined by the Buddha in e.g. Nikayic texts. We cannot use these criteria, and then ignore their context in order to write new mythologies and new practices and new places to enshrine our confidence.Dan74 wrote:Are they not useful only insofar as they aid in developing wholesome qualities, grounds for practice, insight and release?
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
I might be missing something, Dave, but as far as I can make out, our minds provide the context, hence the different take on the same matters. Culture and history also provided context, hence the Dharma was absorbed in different ways between cultures but also within cultures.daverupa wrote:Here is the problem: these criteria are indeed valid ones, but they are so as defined by the Buddha in e.g. Nikayic texts. We cannot use these criteria, and then ignore their context in order to write new mythologies and new practices and new places to enshrine our confidence.Dan74 wrote:Are they not useful only insofar as they aid in developing wholesome qualities, grounds for practice, insight and release?
The purpose, however, is liberation and if you purport to show that Pure Land practice cannot lead to liberation, please state your case.
_/|\_
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
The Buddha did not teach it. Therefore, your inappropriate shifting of the burden of proof can be handily set aside as irrelevant hand-waving; the assertion that it can must be shown, and without provenance to the historical Buddha, chances are as good as e.g. Druidry.Dan74 wrote:if you purport to show that Pure Land practice cannot lead to liberation, please state your case.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Actually the Buddha did teach in the canon that rebirth in the pure realms was possible through diligent practice, he did not teach it as the ultimate goal, but teach it he did.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
The bottom line is that there's no path to liberation without the Noble Eightfold Path and by extension, the Four Noble Truths. This is evidenced by the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11).
According to Ven. Sujato and his reference:"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
-SN 56.11
Ven. Sujato wrote:The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is available in at least five Vinayas,
as well as in the Nikāyas and Āgamas. It is, in fact, by far the most widespread
of all the discourses, with no less than 17 existing versions, and is one of
only a few discourses that survives in the four main Buddhist languages
of Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan.2
-page 25, A History of Mindfulness
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
It is not the case that Pure Land is describing jhana realms, or anything like them, nor is it describing destinations for non-returners; this is a false equivalency between the descriptors employed in either case (Nikaya v Pure Land), and is misleading.lyndon taylor wrote:Actually the Buddha did teach in the canon that rebirth in the pure realms was possible through diligent practice, he did not teach it as the ultimate goal, but teach it he did.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
This discussion just confirms what I suggested before. It's a subset of the topic of Mahayana legitimacy. If you don't accept Mahayana as valid, you aren't likely to see Pure Land as legitimate.
Within Mahayana, the doctrinal basis can be seen clearly in the Avatamsaka sutra and other key texts (I believe there is a relevant chapter in the Lotus).
The practice is not Jhana but buddha-remembrance.
Within Mahayana, the doctrinal basis can be seen clearly in the Avatamsaka sutra and other key texts (I believe there is a relevant chapter in the Lotus).
The practice is not Jhana but buddha-remembrance.
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
As culaavuso notes, it would be more sensible to discuss this on http://dharmawheel.net/ particularly the Pure Land forum: http://dharmawheel.net/viewforum.php?f= ... 418f8bebb9
From a Theravada point of view this is a development that was not taught by the historical Buddha. However, as I noted over on DharmaWheelhttp://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p228791 one could argue that it is an elaboration of the Recollection of the Buddha practice:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... ollections
in particular http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... all-Buddha
Mike
From a Theravada point of view this is a development that was not taught by the historical Buddha. However, as I noted over on DharmaWheelhttp://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p228791 one could argue that it is an elaboration of the Recollection of the Buddha practice:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... ollections
in particular http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... all-Buddha
"There is the case where you recollect the Tathagata: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the Tathagata, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the Tathagata. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.
"Of one who does this, Mahanama, it is said: 'Among those who are out of tune, the disciple of the noble ones dwells in tune; among those who are malicious, he dwells without malice; having attained the stream of Dhamma, he develops the recollection of the Buddha.'
Mike
Re: Pure Land Buddhism - Legitimate?
Furthermore, the Theravada recognise the Pure Abodes, 23-27 on this list: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html :
Dave, above considers this equivalence to be false, but to me it is highly suggestive.
Mike
There are some links there to suttas sources.These are the five Pure Abodes (suddhavasa), which are accessible only to non-returners (anagami) and arahants. Beings who become non-returners in other planes are reborn here, where they attain arahantship.
Dave, above considers this equivalence to be false, but to me it is highly suggestive.
Mike