Pure Land Buddhism

[Tariki]

Previously when I've looked into Buddhism, I got the impression that it is a self-help religion. That a person is indeed expected to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. But I guess that's not the case will all branches of it, eh?

The focus of my path revolves around what you touched on above. Those moments of truth and clarity, that apparently all seekers experience. I believe they come from God, or at least under His direction. A moment of grace if you will, where wisdom from beyond ourselves is shown to us.

Taking things further, I see the Gifts of the Spirit as various manifestations of this clarity. We as frail human beings are able to have a measure of control over it, and administer it to others under the direction of God.

Jesus talked often about the Kingdom of Heaven, not as a reward for the dead but as a reality of this life now. I see the Kingdom as many individuals, all capable of shedding light on the dark situations of life, while all existing in harmony under the authority of the Father. By working with Them, under direction from Him, our path is illuminated before us!

Tobias, I think if we remain firmly within the parameters of our own thought world, assumptions - even our "religious" teachings and doctrines and world view - will always cause us to have a false impression of any other faith. It seems to me that each Faith presents its own "problems" (to be solved) and then as a consequence only its own answers are adequate.

When we just look quickly at a faith other than our own we can really do nothing BUT see any particular "way" - or "stance" - within it as being set within our OWN parameters. Hence the oft made claim (certainly in Protestant literature and sermonisng) that while Christianity is God reaching down to Man, all the other faiths are Man seeking to reach up to God. (Quite how the "godless" Buddhists manage such is open to question.... )

Myself, I have found that the sheer diversity of each Faith shows that there is often far greater divergence WITHIN each than between each. And that there is often a deep correspondence between certain expressions within each, like the Christian - basically monastic - apophatic tradition and certain ways of Buddhist meditation. This is drawn out by the Zen scholar D.T.Suzuki in his little book "Mysticism; Christian and Buddhist" which delves into the sermons of Meister Eckhart, and also the journals of the Pure Land "saint" (myokonin) Saichi.

As I mentioned briefly to Jane, unless the "anatta" (not-self) teaching of Buddhism is taken into account - however superficially - then suffering (dukkha) will never be understood (within the Buddhist context), and yes, then a lot of Buddhism seen through Christian eyes will appear as an attempt at "self help", as seeking to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps. Yet the Buddhist Canonical texst (Theravada) ask us to understand suffering, not "believe" in it. It often seems to me that it is this distinction that makes all the difference......


The love that inspired Oya-sama to go through
All the sufferings and all the hardships -
I thought I was simply to listen to the story,
But that was a grievous mistake, I find.


Anyway, again some words of Merton are apt, at least to me, and often quoted before, yet worth another airing. His words to Suzuki.....

I want to speak for this Western world.................which has in past centuries broken in upon you and brought you our own confusion, our own alienation, our own decrepitude, our lack of culture, our lack of faith...........If I wept until the end of the world, I could not signify enough of what this tragedy means. If only we had thought of coming to you to learn something..............If only we had thought of coming to you and loving you for what you are in yourselves, instead of trying to make you over into our own image and likeness. For me it is clearly evident that you and I have in common and share most intimately precisely that which, in the eyes of conventional Westerners, would seem to separate us. The fact that you are a Zen Buddhist and I am a Christian monk, far from separating us, makes us most like one another. How many centuries is it going to take for people to discover this fact?......

 

[GuardianShua]

Budda was a philosopher and nothing more, but over time Buddhism was turned into a religion. Buddhism is now a philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices. As you may know, we claim our religion is not man made, like yours is. What comfort is there in that, trusting in some man?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Budda [sic] was a philosopher and nothing more, but over time Buddhism was turned into a religion.

The distinction between religion and philosophy is a specifically western one - and quite recent at that, as the Pythagoreans and Plato's academy were still somewhat of a religious institution.

Buddhism is now a philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices.

As is Christianity, even if we discount distant branches as "no true Christians".

As you may know, we claim our religion is not man made, like yours is.

BIG emphasis on that word.
And I even doubt that most Christians would agree with you on that. Some of the saner sects have no trouble whatsoever acknowledging that even Christianity reflects Man's understanding of God, rendered by different authors with vastly different perspectives that reflect their cultural background.

What comfort is there in that, trusting in some man?

Do you mean to say that the truth depends on who utters it? Is a true observation not valid regardless of who the observer is?

 

[GuardianShua]

The distinction between religion and philosophy is a specifically western one - and quite recent at that, as the Pythagoreans and Plato's academy were still somewhat of a religious institution.
The belief in Yahwah as the only true Creator and God goes back about 6000 years.

As is Christianity, even if we discount distant branches as "no true Christians".
Christianity is a Judaic religion. It is the belief in the fulfilment of prophecy in Judaism.

BIG emphasis on that word. True Christians keep the command of God.
And I even doubt that most Christians would agree with you on that. Some of the saner sects have no trouble whatsoever acknowledging that even Christianity reflects Man's understanding of God, rendered by different authors with vastly different perspectives that reflect their cultural background.
It is a known fact that there are those who pretend Christianity. I have even found Wiccans in the congregations proclaiming to be Christians.

Do you mean to say that the truth depends on who utters it? Is a true observation not valid regardless of who the observer is? Some people are more honest than others. Who do you trust?

*******

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The belief in Yahwah as the only true Creator and God goes back about 6000 years.

Except that it does not. Try ca. 800 BCE for the oldest passages in the Bible.

Christianity is a Judaic religion. It is the belief in the fulfilment of prophecy in Judaism.

So? There are still hundreds and thousands of distinct sects and traditions - just as with Buddhism.

True Christians keep the command of God.

I have a slight suspicion that you cannot quite follow...

It is a known fact that there are those who pretend Christianity. I have even found Wiccans in the congregations proclaiming to be Christians.

I'm not talking about "Christian pagans" or any other of the unorthodox branches on the tree of Christianity. I'm talking about people who've actually done their homework.

Some people are more honest than others. Who do you trust?

You really did not understand what I was trying to say, did you? It went straight over your head.

Is "the sky is blue" less of a true statement if uttered by a homeless bum?
This isn't about a lack of honesty, it's about true statements not depending on the person who makes them, but being a value in and of itself.

As for your question: it's not about *who* I trust, but about *what* I trust. The content, not the envelope. The message, not the messenger.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What comfort is there in that, trusting in some man?

Why not trust in some man? If he has a well-thought out message that satisfies one's mind, and if when the message is put into practice it bears good fruit, then I don't see the problem.

Some people are more honest than others. Who do you trust?

If someone is using sales techniques, and doesn't deliver on facts and justification, then I doubt what is claimed. However, when someone presents claims, providing needed arguments and evidence, and the claim seem well-supported to my mind, then I accept the argument.

This isn't about personalities so much as it is about the claims themselves. It doesn't matter who makes a claim when one can examine the reasoning behind the claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GuardianShua]

The message, not the messenger.

A message without a messenger! Thats new to me, never heard of that before. The content of a smooth message is always pleasing. But is that the real world?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

A message without a messenger! Thats new to me, never heard of that before. The content of a smooth message is always pleasing. But is that the real world?

The real world is the real world. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It doesn't matter who remarks on it - if an observation is correct, it's correct regardless of who utters it.

You may feel intensely satisfied that the God you imagine hates exactly the same people as you do, and will award you with a golden mansion once you're dead. But - to return the question to its sender - is that the real world?

 

[GuardianShua]

The real world is the real world. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It doesn't matter who remarks on it - if an observation is correct, it's correct regardless of who utters it.

You may feel intensely satisfied that the God you imagine hates exactly the same people as you do, and will award you with a golden mansion once you're dead. But - to return the question to its sender - is that the real world?

In the real world hate can be justifide, providing it is righteous. Correct translation: "In my Fathers house are many rooms." Rooms, not golden mansions. No one is truly dead until after the final judgement. It is the living Elect who have life immortal. No such promise of life is made to the damned. And you guys wonder why we get up set with you.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In the real world hate can be justifide[sic], providing it is righteous.

Only in alternate Bizarro reality. Certainly not in the real world. Perhaps not even in the one pictured by Biblical Christianity.

Correct translation: "In my Fathers house are many rooms." Rooms, not golden mansions.

Wrong bible verse.

Reve 21, 18: (speaking of the Heavenly Jerusalem) "The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass."

 

[Tariki]

In the real world hate can be justifide, providing it is righteous. Correct translation: "In my Fathers house are many rooms." Rooms, not golden mansions. No one is truly dead until after the final judgement. It is the living Elect who have life immortal. No such promise of life is made to the damned. And you guys wonder why we get up set with you.

Michael, maybe hate can be justified, though I would use the words "righteous indignation"......which may or may not exclude myself from feeling it. Yet when is it justified?. When we meet another who does not share our world view......or perhaps when a human being straps a bomb to his waist and shouts "God is great!" as he blows himself and everyone within 100 yards to bits? Or perhaps when millions of children die each year purely because of economic systems that make sure food reaches our own mouths.....which should tend to turn our "hatred" towards ourselves? No?

Yes, Michael, I do wonder why you get upset with us "guys".

Anyway, getting back to the Buddha as a philosopher, or not.

As a comment, the founder of Shin Buddhism, Shinran, in effect turned history upside down. He understood all reality as the expression of the "Vow mind", as the manifestation of "suchness", as everlasting activities of salvation, Upaya. From this viewpoint, the historical Buddha - and his own teachings - become just one expression within time of the "primal will" that all sentient beings come to realize enlightenment/salvation. Pure Land teachings may or may not be deemed to be derived from him - for, to a certain extent, from such a perspective, this becomes irrelevant. I'd like to add that I am not particulary arguing for Shinran's point of view, merely attempting to explain it. Yet reflecting upon it, the perspective of Shinran can be understood as some sort of guard against fundamentalism, in as much as any expression of spirituality can be understood as being within the orbit of the "divine will" that all be "saved"..........or so it seems to me....

This is all in keeping with many Buddhist sutta's/sutra's........

The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their kind, gain understanding, each thinking that the Lord speaks their own language. This is a special quality of the Buddha. The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to their own ability, act upon it, and each derives the appropriate benefit. This is a special quality of the Buddha.

(Vimalakirti Sutra)


Just as the nature of the earth is one
While beings each live separately,
And the earth has no thought of oneness or difference,
So is the truth of all Buddhas.

Just as the ocean is one
With millions of different waves,
Yet the water is no different:
So is the truth of all Buddhas.

Just as the element earth, while one,
Can produce various sprouts,
Yet it's not that the earth is diverse:
So is the truth of all Buddhas.

(Hua-Yen Sutra)


I bring fullness and satisfaction to the world,
like rain that spreads its moisture everywhere.
Eminent and lowly, superior and inferior,
observers of precepts, violators of precepts,
those fully endowed with proper demeanor,
those not fully endowed,
those of correct views, of erroneous views,
of keen capacity, of dull capacity -
I cause the Dharma rain to rain on all equally,
never lax or neglectful.
When all the various living beings
hear my Law,
they receive it according to their power,
dwelling in their different environments.....
..The Law of the Buddhas
is constantly of a single flavour,
causing the many worlds
to attain full satisfaction everywhere;
by practicing gradually and stage by stage,
all beings can gain the fruits of the way.

(The Lotus Sutra, Parable of the Dharma Rain)

Certainly, as I see it, to posit the idea that the Divine - however conceived - has "written" just one book as a prime means of communication, with just one intended meaning, is ultimately incoherent and indefensible. Yet for those who would argue differently, they can perhaps choose rather to argue with others who think as they do, YET ARGUE FOR A DIFFERENT MEANING, or argue with those who have chosen another book than themselves. When such debates have been resolved to EVERYBODY'S SATISFACTION, then get back to me.......

I will continue to believe (and even continue to observe) that, for those who have the faith that ultimately the Cosmos we live in is benign and means us no harm, for such, the truth of this can be found in all places, at all times.....if we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

All this relates - at least for me - with a "beautiful paradox" that I have spoken of before, drawn from the words of Thomas Merton.... It comes from a letter written to E.D.Andrews, an expert on the life and beliefs of the Shakers (or the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing). Andrews had sent Merton a copy of his book, Shaker Furniture, and Merton was responding to the gift.

This wordless simplicity, in which the works of quiet and holy people speak humbly for themselves. How important that is in our day, when we are flooded with a tidal wave of meaningless words: and worse still when in the void of those words the sinister power of hatred and destruction is at work. The Shakers remain as witnesses to the fact that only humility keeps man in communion with truth, and first of all with his own inner truth. This one must know without knowing it, as they did. For as soon as a man becomes aware of "his truth" he lets go of it and embraces an illusion.

 

[GuardianShua]

Only in alternate Bizarro reality. Certainly not in the real world. Perhaps not even in the one pictured by Biblical Christianity.

What do you think about people who HATE evil? Are they sic also?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What do you think about people who HATE evil?

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Are they sic [sic] also?

"[sic]" has got nothing to do with illness (IOW, "sick"). It's a term indicating that the spelling errors or grammatical mistakes in a quoted passage appear exactly as they were written, rather than being copyist errors.

Call it a mannerism, if you will.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you think about people who HATE evil?

I think it is good to be disapproving of evil ideas, and of evil persons. However, I don't think that hate is an appropriate response towards either.

Hate is a "violent" emotion that clouds good judgment. Here, I agree with the Stoics. Fear is not the only mind-killer.

Hate directed towards ideas unfortunately is all too easily directed towards people as well, even without conscious intent. And then it seems unobjectionable that the large numbers of people are refused eternal life.

Hate is the desire to stamp something, or someone, out. When directed towards people, it can be a wish that someone else will suffer or die or end up in hell. This is why Christian doctrine contains a kind of revenge-fantasy, for revenge is merely one manifestation of hate.

Disapproval is nobler than hate. A disappoving person can calmly consider the merits and flaws of the hated idea or person, and seek a wise solution. A hateful person can only see something that it wishes to destroy or see destroyed.

If you feel hate, free yourself from it. Transform it into disapproval. Then look with fresh eyes and see what good may yet be done.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tariki]

Well, just another few short verses. I found the first near the end of Suzuki's book on Shin, "Buddha of Infinite Light". The verse is from an illiterate woman whom he met in Japan "a few years ago." She dictated the poetry to her son, who wrote the words down.

I have been designing all the time,
saying, "Is this the way or that?"
But there was no designing after all.
All was given fully and freely by Oya-sama.
How grateful I am now! Namu-amida-butsu.

And here is Saichi again....

The sea is just full of water;
there is the seabed that sustains it.
Saichi is just full of evil karma;
there is Amida that sustains it.
How happy I am!
Namu-amida-butsu, Namu-amida-butsu.

 

[Tariki]

As the storm clouds gather once more, a last verse or two from Saichi.....

Whether I am falling to hell
Or bound for the Pure Land,
I have no knowledge:
All is left to Amida's Vow.
"Namu-amida-butsu!"

....and....

To be grateful is all a lie,
The truth is - there is nothing the matter;
And beyond this there is no peace of mind -
Namu-amida-butsu, Namu-amida-butsu, Namu-amida-butsu!
(With this I peacefully retire)


May we all find the peace that passes understanding.

 

[steve_bakr]

Tariki, Great stuff. Such an attitude of complete trust and surrender.

 

[GuardianShua]

As the storm clouds gather once more, a last verse or two from Saichi.....

Whether I am falling to hell
Or bound for the Pure Land,
I have no knowledge:
All is left to Amida's Vow.
"Namu-amida-butsu!"

....and....

To be grateful is all a lie,
The truth is - there is nothing the matter;
And beyond this there is no peace of mind -
Namu-amida-butsu, Namu-amida-butsu, Namu-amida-butsu!
(With this I peacefully retire)


May we all find the peace that passes understanding.

Tariki, I have been reading your post, but you have said nothing worth commenting on. To tell you the truth, I can not think of anything kind to say. It is like we are from two different planets. Any way, I think it best if we go our separate ways.

 

[Tariki]

Tariki, I have been reading your post, but you have said nothing worth commenting on. To tell you the truth, I can not think of anything kind to say. It is like we are from two different planets. Any way, I think it best if we go our separate ways.

Michael, that's the thing isn't it? One person reads a verse and sees "trust and surrender", another sees "nothing worth commenting upon", and "nothing kind to say."

Perhaps that is the difference between us. Although you do not say so explicitly here, your own attitude is one of "if you see nothing in what I say, you are blind", while I accept that - in secular parlance - there can be horses for courses.

All the best

 

[benglobal]

]No, not at all. I was more concerned that I had been misunderstood. Just to make myself clear, I in no way equate meditation with "spiritual bypassing".

Yes I did get that vibe initially but I understand where you are at.

As far as "knowing nothing", for me such has nothing whatsoever to do with practical knowledge. One could well be a brain surgeon, or a physicist - anything! - and "know nothing" in the sense that is meant. i.e. That "spiritual truth" is not some sort of accumulation of knowledge built up over the years that we can access before each decision or act, but is more a stripping of the self. Reality-as-is is truth, pure freedom, creativity, love.........which we are able to share, by grace. Rather than being "something/someone", a self created persona considered "spiritual" and thus thrown up against those who are not so (in our eyes) , in Christian terms it is following Christ, who emptied Himself in order to become all things to all humanity. So "knowing nothing" can be a genuine spontaneity......"love God and do what you will"......or anabhoga-carya, "effortlessness" or "no striving" where "no working is true working"....as we say in the Pure Land.....

Yes to my mind it's there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom/truth. Knowledge is an incremental thing (or not) based on many factors where as wisdom/truth is an internal presentation of a certain knowing gained through observation, experience, awareness and intuition. You can come to that point even if you cannot read or write, so there should be no attached agenda to this process, but merely observe, listen and asses when looking for wisdom/truth in others. This is evident within this forum Tariki and I have found truth and wisdom amongst Christian, atheist and yes, Buddhist a like and also not.
I see in some of your previous posts objecting to the word 'spiritual' (yuk) and 'master' which are both words I use in combination. My assessment of spiritual = positive interconnection and relationship and master = the one that shows the way, as in guide. This could be your next door neighbor Tariki as it is a 'reality as is' definition. That next door neighbour may be an atheist Tariki and yes they could still be a spiritual master.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

This would mean being poor in the holy spirit as defined below, but not poor in 'reality as is spirit' as above, which can be applied by anybody, anywhere at any time, regardless of any religious attachment.



So in reference to following Christ, by my definition of a 'spiritual master' I have no problem following. This following would be an application of my definition of 'spiritual', to perhaps moving on to becoming a 'master', again as my definition above (a work in progress). To apply this Tariki is to open up to, or let in a higher spirit, or holy spirit (for a Christian view) which would mean by my definition a positive interconnection and relationship with god, or other, which would mean a filling within of this spirit, an immense positive interconnection and relationship within. Once you are filled with the spirit Tariki there can be no denying, so I do not seek, but only look for better ways to become a master (yuk) which is all about acting out through the spirit (as above.)
But the base or foundation to this spiritual mastery is 'reality as is'

This to my mind this was what Jesus was referring to when he said ' the only way to the father was through him'. The only way to fill with the holy spirit was to be a spiritual master, a living example, showing the way, by applying positive interconnection and relationship (the spirit)
That in some instances meant for Jesus to challenge the status quo on every level, but with passive resistance - debate, communication, analogy's, not drawing of arms or violence, yes positive interconnection and relationship. No he didn’t come to make peace but to put to the sword the ignorance that pervaded and still does today. Ignorance is the building block of evil, (negative interconnection and relationship).


There is nothing I disagree with Tariki, but for my lack of Knowledge (arghhhhhh) with some of your pure land wording, although I have highjacked ‘your reality as is’
Sorry if I have strayed but I needed to let go.