Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[nightflight]

I wasn't learning it "on my own". I belonged to several online discussions groups, one a modernist, one a more traditional.



And again and again (and yes, again) I have explained to you that I CANNOT believe in a literal Amida Buddha.



Sigh. I gave you a book list above, a list which included the Tannisho. For crying out loud how much does a person have to know about this in order to make an "informed" decision? Did Shinran demand university degrees from the poor fishermen and farmers he preached to?

To put is simply, very, very simply, I tried Shin Buddhism and it didn't do it for me.

Are you a man of shinjin, Yoder?

 

[ananda]

I find this perplexing: if (later) Mahayana Buddhism represented a higher and "more mature and complete" form of the historical Buddha's teachings, why is this path so much easier (faith only) than the self-development path of (earlier) e.g. Theravada Buddhism? Why not just start and end with "hey guys, just have faith in me and my original self, Amida Buddha and we'll take you to Nirvana" and leave it at that? Wouldn't that have been much easier than teaching for 40 years? Why did Buddha hesitate to teach after his enlightenment, initially with the thought that his realizations were too hard for most of the world, if the "faith only" path was the essence of his teaching?

Just curious as to how the OP reconciles this, not trying to be combative

 

[Yoder777]

I find this perplexing: if (later) Mahayana Buddhism represented a higher and "more mature and complete" form of the historical Buddha's teachings, why is this path so much easier (faith only) than the self-development path of (earlier) e.g. Theravada Buddhism? Why not just start and end with "hey guys, just have faith in me and my original self, Amida Buddha and we'll take you to Nirvana" and leave it at that? Wouldn't that have been much easier than teaching for 40 years? Why did Buddha hesitate to teach after his enlightenment, initially with the thought that his realizations were too hard for most of the world, if the "faith only" path was the essence of his teaching?

Just curious as to how the OP reconciles this, not trying to be combative

That's a very good question. I can answer that by addressing Pure Land Buddhism specifically, which is often called the hardest to believe but the easiest to practice form of Buddhism:

Some schools of Buddhism are very profound and difficult to understand and thus to practice. In the west, the Zen and Tibetan methods have been well accepted but are more difficult to attain achievement in due to the shortage of highly qualified masters and the obstacles practitioners may encounter.

However, the Pure Land School is both easy and safe to practice. It can be practiced anywhere, anytime. The only requirements for Pure Land practitioners are unwavering belief, sincere vows and diligent cultivation. We can chant "Amituofo" silently or aloud, while sitting, standing, walking or lying down. In our constantly changing times, if we can maintain sincerity of mind, a compassionate heart, the unwavering vow to transcend the cycle of birth and death, the patience to practice over several years and the diligence to see through to the true reality and to let go of attachments; we will achieve. We can then be born into the Western Pure Land carrying over our existing karma.

From ancient times till now, sages and patriarchs have said that the Pure Land method is the most difficult to believe, but the easiest to practice. Therefore, Master Chin Kung urges us to truly cultivate, to sincerely chant "Amituofo" without doubt, without intermingling with other methods or thoughts, without interruption, to be constantly mindful of Buddha Amituofo and vow to be born into the Pure Land, to become a Buddha in this lifetime.
http://www.amtfweb.org/english/master-html/english-viewpoint.htm

If Gautama Buddha had taught at the beginning of his ministry that there's another Buddha on a planet lightyears away who attained enlightenment millions of years ago, and that we can be saved in this lifetime by calling on his name, perhaps even his own followers would have disowned him, since they were not ready for the teaching. This is where the concept of expedient means comes in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

The reason why there are many different schools of Buddhism is in order to fit the many different personality types and levels of understanding of the people within Buddhism and also those on the outside who may someday become Buddhists. Out of compassion for all mankind, the Buddha paved the way for there being more than one acceptable form of Buddhism.

 

[smaneck]

If Gautama Buddha had taught at the beginning of his ministry that there's another Buddha on a planet lightyears away who attained enlightenment millions of years ago, and that we can be saved in this lifetime by calling on his name, perhaps even his own followers would have disowned him, since they were not ready for the teaching.

Did any Buddha ever teach this? If so, when and where?

 

[dlamberth]

Actually, in the West, millions of dollars have been made selling books and offering meditation classes specifically for people looking for a secular approach to Buddhism.

It's only a guess, but from my own circle of experience I'd hazard to say that most in the West who look towards Buddhism does so not from a secular approach but from some sense of the Divine Presence in their lives.

.

 

[nightflight]

It's only a guess, but from my own circle of experience I'd hazard to say that most in the West who look towards Buddhism does so not from a secular approach but from some sense of the Divine Presence in their lives.

.

Yes, people in the West who look towards Buddhism are seeking the Divine, but often seek that without many of the trappings of traditional Western religion.

 

[nightflight]

Did any Buddha ever teach this? If so, when and where?

Why would they disown him? Weren't his first followers essentially Hindus already?

 

[Yoder777]

Did any Buddha ever teach this? If so, when and where?

It's what Gautama Buddha taught regarding the Pure Land and Amitabha in the Pure Land sutras. Pure Land Buddhists traditionally believe that the Pure Land sutras were spoken by Gautama himself during his earthly lifetime, much like any other Mahayana sutra.

 

[smaneck]

It's what Gautama Buddha taught regarding the Pure Land and Amitabha in the Pure Land sutras. Pure Land Buddhists traditionally believe that the Pure Land sutras were spoken by Gautama himself during his earthly lifetime, much like any other Mahayana sutra.

Gautama taught that the Pure Land and Amitabha was on another planet light years away? Would you post the statement and source where he says that?

 

[ananda]

That's a very good question. I can answer that by addressing Pure Land Buddhism specifically, which is often called the hardest to believe but the easiest to practice form of Buddhism: ... If Gautama Buddha had taught at the beginning of his ministry that there's another Buddha on a planet lightyears away who attained enlightenment millions of years ago, and that we can be saved in this lifetime by calling on his name, perhaps even his own followers would have disowned him, since they were not ready for the teaching. This is where the concept of expedient means comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya The reason why there are many different schools of Buddhism is in order to fit the many different personality types and levels of understanding of the people within Buddhism and also those on the outside who may someday become Buddhists. Out of compassion for all mankind, the Buddha paved the way for there being more than one acceptable form of Buddhism.

Thanks for the explanation.

I am reminded of what Siddhatta Buddha stated in the early Pali nikayas: "The doctrine and discipline proclaimed by the Buddha shine when open and not when covered, even as the sun and moon shine when open and not when covered" (AN 1) and "Secrecy is the hallmark of false doctrines". Also, as he was passing away into nibbana, he stated that he taught his disciples everything: "I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine; for in respect of the truths, Ananda, the Tathagata [Buddha] has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher who hides some essential knowledge from the pupil." (DN 16).

 

[Yoder777]

Gautama taught that the Pure Land and Amitabha was on another planet light years away? Would you post the statement and source where he says that?

This cartoon program is based word for word on the Pure Land sutras, and provides a visual presentation of what they describe:

I like to believe that the Pure Land is actually in a higher dimension, rather on a planet light years away, but the sutras themselves say that it's actually on an incredibly distant planet.

The Pure Land is a multifaceted reality, in my opinion. The Pure Land is not on some planet lightyears away, but is instead a higher dimension of the world we experience here and now. How is this possible? Scientists today are speculating about the existence of higher dimensions interpenetrating our own:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=String_theory#Extra_dimensions

While we live and breathe in these fleshly bodies, of course we are still living in a world of suffering and imperfection. Yet Shinran taught that our birth in the Pure Land is assured the moment we accept faith, which suggests to me that we can experience this higher reality in the here and now, even if only in short glimpses.

The Shin Buddhist priest, John Paraskevopoulos, in his monograph on Shin Buddhism, writes:

'In Shin Buddhism, Nirvana or Ultimate Reality (also known as the "Dharma-Body" or Dharmakaya in the original Sanskrit) has assumed a more concrete form as (a) the Buddha of Infinite Light (Amitabha) and Infinite Life (Amitayus) and (b) the "Pure Land" or "Land of Utmost Bliss" (Sukhavati), the realm over which this Buddha is said to preside.... Amida is the Eternal Buddha who is said to have taken form as Shakyamuni and his teachings in order to become known to us in ways we can readily comprehend.'[6]

John Paraskevopoulos elucidates the notion of Nirvana, of which Amida is an embodiment, in the following terms:

'... [Nirvana's] more positive connotation is that of a higher state of being, the dispelling of illusion and the corresponding joy of liberation. An early Buddhist scripture describes Nirvana as: ...the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge... (Samyutta Nikaya).[7]

This Nirvana is seen as eternal and of one nature, indeed as the essence of all things. According to Paraskevopoulos:

'In Mahayana Buddhism it is taught that there is fundamentally one reality which, in its highest and purest dimension, is experienced as Nirvana. It is also known, as we have seen, as the Dharma-Body (considered as the ultimate form of Being) or "Suchness" (Tathata in Sanskrit) when viewed as the essence of all things ... "The Dharma-Body is eternity, bliss, true self and purity. It is forever free of all birth, ageing, sickness and death" (Nirvana Sutra).[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Buddha

 

[smaneck]

This cartoon program is based word for word on the Pure Land sutras, and provides a visual presentation of what they describe:.

I'd much rather read the text if you don't mind. Harder to critically analyze a cartoon.

 

[EatingPie]

Hi. I realize I'm late here. I get e-mails about topics, but whenever I check, there's like a million posts! I would like to challenge a few of your statements here, and hopefully I can do so in the spirit of respect and learning.

What if I told you that the universe has always existed in some form, so there's no need for a Creator, and that there's a natural law of cause and effect, so there's no need for a Judge who rewards and punishes?

What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?

Okay, so this is what I want to ask about.

The way you describe things here, it looks to me like you've changed the terminology, but still are talking about a God. I say this because you've stated the existence of a "compassionate essence." Essence implies ethereal rather than bodily, at which point, I would go so far as to suggest "spiritual" as a synonym.

More important to me, however, is that you are defining this essence as "compassionate." If an essence is compassionate, it must have an intelligence; it must know what "compassionate" means, and it must know the right way to apply it to a myriad of situations. Further, the application of compassion requires a standard and a judgement. The standard being "compassion is good" and "non-compassion is not-good." While judgement means being able to distinguish a situation that requires the application of compassion.

So, the compassionate essence has intelligence, a standard, and the ability to judge. All these attributes, Christianity (and Judaism I believe) apply to God.

Certainly the Biblical description of God goes further than this: God loves, interacts, has feelings, etc. So "a compassionate essence" may not be the the Christian God, but it sounds to me like some form of God (or god, if you will) that thinks, has a standard, and judges.

Can you further explain this essence in a way that refutes what I'm suggesting?

Thanks!

-Pie

 

[Yoder777]

I'd much rather read the text if you don't mind. Harder to critically analyze a cartoon.

It is word for word and it can also help you to see exactly what the text is describing, but to each his own.

 

[Yoder777]

Hi. I realize I'm late here. I get e-mails about topics, but whenever I check, there's like a million posts! I would like to challenge a few of your statements here, and hopefully I can do so in the spirit of respect and learning.


Okay, so this is what I want to ask about.

The way you describe things here, it looks to me like you've changed the terminology, but still are talking about a God. I say this because you've stated the existence of a "compassionate essence." Essence implies ethereal rather than bodily, at which point, I would go so far as to suggest "spiritual" as a synonym.

More important to me, however, is that you are defining this essence as "compassionate." If an essence is compassionate, it must have an intelligence; it must know what "compassionate" means, and it must know the right way to apply it to a myriad of situations. Further, the application of compassion requires a standard and a judgement. The standard being "compassion is good" and "non-compassion is not-good." While judgement means being able to distinguish a situation that requires the application of compassion.

So, the compassionate essence has intelligence, a standard, and the ability to judge. All these attributes, Christianity (and Judaism I believe) apply to God.

Certainly the Biblical description of God goes further than this: God loves, interacts, has feelings, etc. So "a compassionate essence" may not be the the Christian God, but it sounds to me like some form of God (or god, if you will) that thinks, has a standard, and judges.

Can you further explain this essence in a way that refutes what I'm suggesting?

Thanks!

-Pie

What I am referring to is not God in an Abrahamic sense, since the eternal Buddha neither created the universe (since the universe has always existed in some form), and the eternal Buddha doesn't stand as a Judge (since there is the natural law of karma, cause and effect.)

Like the Brahman of Hinduism, the eternal Buddha can be described as impersonal or even as trans-personal. In Mahayana Buddhism, however, there are many Buddhas, human beings who've attained Buddhahood, who've become one with the eternal Buddha, for the enlightenment of all mankind. We can pray to and take refuge in these Buddhas, much like how Christians pray to Jesus and trust in him for their salvation.

In Pure Land Buddhism, the object of devotion is Amitabha Buddha. We chant "Namu Amida Butsu," which means "I take refuge in the Buddha of infinite light and infinite life," in hope that we will be reborn in Amida's Pure Land, which is free of all the evils and temptations of this world, so that we can follow the pure Dharma without hindrances, under the teaching and care of Amida himself.

 

[Yoder777]

Almost everything said about Jesus was already said about Buddha almost six hundred years earlier, the main difference being that, while Jesus is claimed to be the only son of God who came down from heaven, the Buddha is an awakened man, leading us all to our own enlightenment.

This is a beautiful Bollywood film on the life of Buddha, click on CC for English subtitles:

 

[Yoder777]

For a basic introduction to Pure Land Buddhism, I recommend that you read this article and then please ask me any questions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

Pure Land Buddhism is one of the oldest and one of the most widely practiced schools of Buddhism in the world today.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I find it interesting how the sutra gives a ten minute advertisement for this heavenly place, treating it something like a luxurious health resort. Something similar happens in the Biblical book of Revelation:

The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.
-- Revelation 21:18-21

It seems that gemstones have a way of impressing people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd much rather read the text if you don't mind. Harder to critically analyze a cartoon.

There's not actually much to analyze. The sutra says very little. It basically introduces the cosmology of Pure Land Buddhism. It more or less says that there is a perfect far away world of optimal beauty where evil doesn't exist and the Infinite Buddha teaches his doctrines, and you might hope one day to learn from him in that place.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Yoder777]

I find it interesting how the sutra gives a ten minute advertisement for this heavenly place, treating it something like a luxurious health resort. Something similar happens in the Biblical book of Revelation:

The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.
-- Revelation 21:18-21

It seems that gemstones have a way of impressing people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm sure there've been numerous commentaries describing the metaphorical, metaphysical meanings of the descriptions of the Pure Land.