Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

Yoder777 · Jul 4, 2015

Korean fundamentalist Christians are actively seeking to destroy the Buddhist heritage of South Korea. This wouldn't be happening without Western influence. In the words of one Protestant minister who seeks the end to Korean Buddhism, "Is there any Buddhist country in the world that is rich?" Pat Robertson would be proud.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/throug...an-Buddhist-Tension-in-South-Korea-Part-2.htm

Yoder777 · Jul 5, 2015

Om mani padme hum is the mantra to Kannon or Guanyin, the feminine consort of Amida Buddha who represents the compassion of all Buddhas. Buddhism has not suppressed the divine feminine to the extent that it's been suppressed in the Western world. While Amida is for our salvation after death, Kannon is called to for our salvation from suffering in this world. There is a deep human need, at least in many people, to reach out to the divine as personified in a feminine, motherly form.

Shinran left the life of a monk to pursue marriage after Kannon, the feminine consort of Amida Buddha, appeared to him in a dream and promised to be incarnated as his future wife, Eshinni. Devotion to the divine feminine may not be a common practice in Shin temples today, at least not in North America, but it was important to Shinran and remains important for the common people in Japan today.

http://www.buddhas-online.com/kwanyin.html

smaneck · Jul 5, 2015

Yoder777 said:
Om mani padme hum is the mantra to Kannon or Guanyin, the feminine consort of Amida Buddha who represents the compassion of all Buddhas.

My understanding is that Quanyin was originally Avalokiteshvera, probably the most prominent bodhisatva before the Pure Land Sect came along. The name Avalokiteshvera means "he who looks down with compassion." The depictions of Avalokiteshvera seemed so effeminate to the Chinese that he was taken for a female and merged with the Chinese goddess of wisdom, Guanyin.

Yoder777 · Jul 5, 2015

smaneck said:
My understanding is that Quanyin was originally Avalokiteshvera, probably the most prominent bodhisatva before the Pure Land Sect came along. The name Avalokiteshvera means "he who looks down with compassion." The depictions of Avalokiteshvera seemed so effeminate to the Chinese that he was taken for a female and merged with the Chinese goddess of wisdom, Guanyin.

The depiction of Avalokiteshvera as female originated with Buddhists texts like the Lotus Sutra which say that he appears to people in any form necessary to help lead them out of suffering.

Yoder777 · Jul 5, 2015

Nirvana is often mistaken as annihilation, since the word literally means "to blow out." What's being blown out, though, is not existence but the suffering that goes along with it. Nirvana, being freedom from suffering, is often described as ultimate bliss. The Pure Land is a way of describing Nirvana in positive terms. When one sees the Pure Land beautifully depicted as it is in this video, one can imagine how the concept emerged in ancient India to give hope for poor, suffering people who had to cope with not even having access to clean water. Describing Nirvana as total emptiness just wouldn't appeal to their situation, so the Buddha compassionately used expedient means in order to help them understand a higher truth. One should remember that the historical Buddha even settled a war being fought between tribes over water rights.

Shinran asserts in the Jinenhonisho that Amida is a medium, means, source that enables us to know the formless, colorless Dharmakaya. Like the Name (Myogo), belief in Amida and the Pure Land, though specific and seemingly limited symbols, direct the mind to contemplate the deeper reality from which the form of Amida and the Pure Land have emerged as the dynamic symbols that activate faith. Reality is objective to us to the extent that our minds do not create reality. We exist in reality. In that sense Amida and the Pure Land, as symbols of the highest reality, are not merely constructions of our mind, though they have arisen in the course of Buddhist history as a focal point of Buddhist aspiration and contemplation. In the course of the spiritual evolution of Buddhism, they have become vehicles to convey that reality to us.
http://shindharmanet.com/course/c22/

It's also worth noting that, in Jodo Shinshu teaching, once you attain Nirvana, you immediately return to this world as a Bodhisattva in order to help lead all other beings to enlightenment. So our goal, then, for after we leave this world is to return to it in a completely compassionate and blissful state, just as Amida Buddha has helped us.

Just as Amida Buddha freely offers birth in the Pure Land to anyone who calls on his name, so too will we selflessly help the suffering people of this world as Bodhisattvas. And just as our birth in the Pure Land is immediately assured the moment we accept faith, so too can we begin the work of Bodhisattvas by aiding the suffering of others in the here and now as engaged Buddhists.

Having been doing a lot of reading lately, I noticed this excerpt from Chapter 6 of the Lotus Sutra, with Watson’s excellent translation. After the Buddha Shakyamuni bestows his prophecy to Mahakashyapa, he describes the “Buddha-realm” Mahakashyapa will have after attaining Buddha-hood:

His realm will be majestically adorned, free of defilement or evil, shards or rubble, thorns or briers, or the unclean refuse of latrines. The land will be level and smooth, without high places or sags, pits or knolls. The ground will be of lapis lazuli, with rows of jeweled trees and ropes of gold to mark the boundaries of the roads.

It’s interesting to note that these passages are very similar. It seems that this description of a Buddha-realm as being adorned with jewels and pleasant things is a common literary device for the composers of the Mahayana sutras.

Interestingly, I’ve also noticed that The Pali Canon often “recycles” certain stock phrases as well, so it’s not just a Mahayana thing.

I think part of this is that when sutras were first committed to memory by the early followers, they had to be heavily edited and rearranged for easier memorization. So, every sutra you ever read always sounds stilted and stylized; it’s probably the only way the early Buddhists could keep track of voluminous sutras in their minds.

In any case, having noticed this a while back, I have had to ask myself “what can I take away from this as a Buddhist?” A literary device, once you notice it, kind of loses it’s meaning. However, having had time to think about this, like Shinran, I believe that the Pure Land really is nothing but Nirvana itself. Not a geographic place, but Nirvana plain and simple...
http://jkllr.net/2008/03/03/imagery-of-the-pure-land-sutras/

Gxg (G²) · Jul 5, 2015

ananda said:
IMO one path is hard and strait, and encourages elevation; the other is easy and wide, and encourages deprecation.

There was an excellent presentation on the issue that stood out to me recently on his journey and the way that things progressed when it came to knowing how to walk a hard/straight path...

And on the issue of the encounters between differing paths:

Yoder777 · Jul 5, 2015

This is an interesting article on how the Pure Land Buddhist perspective on the Supreme Being is diffrent from other religions:

Hare Krishna folks entrust themselves to Krishna, Christians to Jesus, Taoists surrender to the Infinite, Islamists – especially Sufis – totally submit to God and divine law. If we assume, arguendo, that modern interpretations of Shin Buddhism are valid and complete in themselves, we should admit that Jodo Shinshu is merely the Japanese equivalent of a core teaching found in other religions too. Like Oomoto, there would be no need for overseas missions or conversions, since people could merely adhere to their old religion and reach the same achievements, with our school’s philosophy providing only the frame. Taking into account the fact that many Dharma teachers are strong exponents of ecumenic views, we may wonder what is the point of being a Shin Buddhist instead of a Universal Sufi...

There might be many interpretations of our object of faith, but the Buddha clearly preached about a certain other Buddha, encompassing certain powers, devising a unique means for our salvation, the nembutsu, and enabling certain effects, our birth in the Pure Land. In our quest for faith in the valley of doubt, we must not forsake our destination. Unlike ISKCON, we don’t have to be vegetarians to walk this path, unlike Protestants, our lives do not necessarily portray our salvation prospects, unlike Sufis and Tibetans, we don’t have to reach high levels of realisation to get rid of good and evil. These differences, do not nullify the existing analogies, but surely, they do stress the differentiation between these paths – valid yet different ways. Since they are different, Amida cannot be the same with Krishna, Christ or Samantabhadra. Even if ultimately their source is One, they represent completely different levels or types of manifestation and obviously Amida is the most compassionate, intelligible, non-judgemental and thus, supreme expression of this activity.
https://nembutsumonto.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/encountering-the-tathagata-in-person/

Yoder777 · Jul 5, 2015

http://nypost.com/2015/07/05/man-dies-instantly-after-launching-firework-off-head/

And I thought that I needed to practice better mindfulness. In all seriousness, let this tragic story be a lesson for us all, as we're foolish beings in denial of our own delusions that will destroy us all if we're not awakened to them. Please also keep in mind that this kind of unskillful behavior is why the Buddha forbids intoxication in all forms.

The fact that he took a selfie with a woman in the background taking a selfie is a sad commentary on today's society:
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/devon2.jpg?quality=65&strip=all

May he receive the compassion of the Buddha for all foolish beings such as ourselves.

Yoder777 · Jul 8, 2015

This is very worth reading:

Many people also find it odd that Pure Realm (Pure Land) Buddhists teach the exclusive reliance on “Other Power” while the Buddha, in his final instructions to his disciples, seems to have adamantly insisted on self power:
“Therefore, O Ananda, be ye lamps unto yourselves. Rely on yourselves, and do not rely on external help. Hold fast to the Dhamma as a lamp. Seek salvation alone in the Dhamma. Look not for assistance to any one
besides yourselves.” Mahaparinibbana Suttanta
Many people mistakenly believe Other Power is either Higher Power or External Power. Buddhists reject the idea of a higher power in the sense of a God who is the creator and controller of the universe. All things
have Buddha nature and are thus equal. As for external or other power, the non-dualistic insight of Buddhism sees the designation of internal and external as conventional distinctions only and not absolute. Other Power
simply refers to the Dharma Power which is other than the vicious circle of samsara (birth-and-death), other than ego or self-centered power that loops and feeds back on itself. You might say it’s self regenerating.
A fundamental teaching of all Buddhists is the “Three Marks of Existence”: Dukkha, Impermanence and Selflessness (anatman). Looked at in terms of Selflessness, the Buddha’s deathbed instruction to “rely on
yourselves” can be just as misleading as the Pure Realm schools’ teaching of “exclusive reliance on Other Power.” The Buddha seems to be saying, “Rely on yourself but there is no self. Rely on that which doesn’t exist.” Actually, as you study Buddhism, Self Power and Other Power resolve themselves into Non-Self. They are just two different ways of getting there; different paths for people of different capacities and inclinations.*...
Words in Buddhism are always pointing beyond themselves to intuitive and, at the same time, practical and visceral experiences and insights. The teachings of Buddhism are like a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t get stuck on the finger or you will never see the moon of the true Dharma.
*Our capacity to gain enlightenment in this life is a very important point which, at least superficially, separates some schools of Buddhism. It is an important point to understand and leads to many other points of
debate or differences in perspective and attitudes between schools. In the Jodo Shinshu teaching, we talk about those with Shinjin (“faith”) living with the assurance of enlightenment (Pure Realm) at the moment of
death.
http://seattlebetsuin.org/newsletter/201302-en.pdf

ananda · Jul 8, 2015

Yoder777 said:
This is very worth reading:

... The Buddha seems to be saying, “Rely on yourself but there is no self. Rely on that which doesn’t exist.” Actually, as you study Buddhism, Self Power and Other Power resolve themselves into Non-Self ...

Click to expand...

IMO the author is mistaken about the "self", at least in terms of early Buddhism.

The self does exist in samsara, but only as an ever changing combination of khandhas/aggregates (matter, consciousness, etc.). There is no "the permanent self", but there is an "ever changing self" (as long as we're in samsara). Since the "self" is always changing, it is - on one hand - improper to say that the "self" exists, since labeling something implies that that something exists permanently, without change.

For example, I can call a fruit in front of me an "orange". With the word "orange", there is the implication that there is something permanent about the object in front of me which is encapsulated in the word "orange". If I leave it here undisturbed for a couple of years, and return to it, is the "orange" still there? No - it continued to change on a microscopic level, eventually transforming into rottenness and returning to dust. It is no longer an "orange" then. However, it is proper to call it an "orange" now, for convenience sake, but from the perspective of eternity/nibbana, it is improper to call it an "orange".

On the journey to a far off land, we might employ a raft to traverse a river. When we cross over, the raft is left behind, and we continue on in a state of "non-raft". In the same way, the ever-changing self does exist, and we are to utilize it as a tool - like the raft - to achieve non-self.

Eudaimonist · Jul 8, 2015

ananda said:
Since the "self" is always changing, it is - on one hand - improper to say that the "self" exists, since labeling something implies that that something exists permanently, without change.

Odd, it doesn't mean anything like that to me.

eudaimonia,

Mark

ananda · Jul 8, 2015

Eudaimonist said:
Odd, it doesn't mean anything like that to me.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you believe that your self never changes, and is eternal?

Eudaimonist · Jul 8, 2015

ananda said:
Do you believe that your self never changes, and is eternal?

No, that would be like a belief in an "immortal soul". I don't hold any such belief.

My belief is that human beings are biological beings, and as such certainly change over time and have no powers of immortality.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Jane_the_Bane · Jul 9, 2015

My main beef with most religions is their obsession with permanence as the ultimate goal. I do not consider change and impermanence to be bad - even in the case of such fundamental changes as death. To me, this obsession with permanence is a fool's errand, a dim understanding of what permanence means.
An unchanging eternity would be the One True Death: stasis. A reality without dynamism, frozen in a specific shape. Childish wishful thinking simply conceives of eternal life as an endless succession of blissful experiences we are familiar with from this existence, in some cases even literally so: nice food, good weather, luxury, lots of loved ones. People who hold these beliefs do not realize what eternity means, and how it erodes all meaning.

Yoder777 · Jul 9, 2015

Modern science tells us that there are likely countless worlds with intelligent life and higher dimensions interpenetrating our own. These are things that Buddhism has taught for over two thousand years. In Buddhist cosmology, the Pure Land of Amitabha is one of many Buddha lands or Buddha realms, with our own world belonging to Shakyamuni Buddha.

If the universe has always existed, and there are countless worlds with intelligent life, then it's not so hard to believe that if Siddhartha Gautama could attain enlightenment on our own world, countless other Buddhas have done the same on countless other worlds, despite the metaphorical language used to describe them in the sutras.

Other than the idea of there being countless Buddhas, such as Amitabha, from whom we can seek spiritual help, how do we benefit from the realization of there being other worlds?

With so much suffering, hate, and ignorance in our world, there's great solace in looking up at the night sky and knowing that somewhere, somehow, things are the way they are supposed to be. Perhaps this gives hope for our own world to someday wake up from its global delusion.

smaneck · Jul 9, 2015

Yoder777 said:
Modern science tells us that there are likely countless worlds with intelligent life and higher dimensions interpenetrating our own.

Actually science hasn't determined that as yet. At most it presents the possibility.

Yoder777 · Jul 9, 2015

smaneck said:
Actually science hasn't determined that as yet. At most it presents the possibility.

That's why I used the term "likely."

Eudaimonist · Jul 10, 2015

Yoder777 said:
Modern science tells us that there are likely countless worlds with intelligent life and higher dimensions interpenetrating our own.

Please don't confuse Deepak Chopra and his ilk for modern science. There are no supported claims in modern science about "higher dimensions", and even "other" dimensions are still speculative.

If the universe has always existed, and there are countless worlds with intelligent life

That's a big if, and as yet an unsupported conclusion. The failure of SETI to find signs of intelligent life suggests that intelligent life might be rare.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Yoder777 · Jul 10, 2015

Belief in higher worlds is common in both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism:

Why should the planet earth be the only planet to contain life forms? Earth is a tiny speck in a huge universe...
Such is the vastness of the cosmos. When we consider the vastness of the many universes making up what is popularly known as 'outer space', the hypothesis that other-world systems might exist is scientifically feasible.
In the light of modern scientific discoveries, we can appreciate the limitations of the human world. Today, science has demonstrated that our human world exists within the limitations of the vibrational frequencies that can be received by our sense organs. And science has also shown us that there are other vibrational frequencies which are above or below our range of reception. With the discovery of radio waves, X-rays, TV waves, and micro waves, we can appreciate the extremely limited vision that is imposed on us by our sense organs. We peep out at the universe through the 'crack' allowed by our sense organs, just as a little child peeps out through the crack in the door. This awareness of our limited perception demonstrates to us the possibility that other world systems may exist that are separate from ours or that interpenetrate with ours.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/300.htm

Yoder777 · Jul 11, 2015

Having grown up in a Christian home, I must be honest that I find it easier to believe the faith of Shinran than it is for me to believe that the tribal deity of ancient Israel eternally existed as three persons, who then sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself for sins committed against himself, and that anyone who doesn't believe this will suffer eternal conscious torment in hell.

If the universe has always existed in some form, and the historical Gautama attained Buddhahood in this world, then it's not hard for me to believe that aeons ago, in a galaxy incredibly far away, Dharmakara attained enlightenment for the salvation of all beings, and that he resides in his own Pure Land today, just as other Buddhas have been traditionally believed to reside in their own worlds and realms.

I realize that the Pure Land sutras used metaphorical language to describe a reality beyond our human understanding, but that doesn't automatically mean that the Pure Land it describes isn't there.

Scientists like Carl Sagan have told us it's mathematically probable that life has evolved on other planets, so it's not too much a leap of faith that there are Buddhas on other planets as well.

This more literal way of describing Amitabha might seem distant and aloof, but his infinite life and infinite light shine in all directions, making his presence immediately available to us through the Nembutsu.

Shinran taught that Shakyamuni's primary purpose in this world was to teach Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. I recognize that there are a variety of legitimate perspectives today on what it means to be Buddhist, but my personal desire is to find out what Shinran believed and why he believed it.

Pure Land is the most commonly practiced school of Buddhism and has been for centuries because of the hope it gives to common people who can't follow the path of sages. Shandao, Honen, Shinran and others viewed the roles of Shakyamuni and Amitabha as complementary, given that their Buddhahood is one and the same reality.

Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Baha'i

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Early Buddhist

I believe in life before death!

Early Buddhist

I believe in life before death!

Gaia's godchild

Senior Veteran

Baha'i

Senior Veteran

I believe in life before death!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads