Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:41 pm

thunderbumble wrote:Buddha Shakyamuni died 500 years before that sutra was written. Mahayana scholars say Buddha Shakyamuni never gave this sermon. It's allegorical.


If thats what you believe and you consider Pure Land to be fake then why in Buddhas name are you following something you dont even believe in to begin with?

Thats like me saying I dont believe in Santa clause hes not real........but I hope he brings me toys this month :shrug:

Is the Pure Abodes in the Pali Canon also an allegory?

How about Tusita heaven and the next Buddha Maitreya they allegories also? :mrgreen:

If I wasnt a Mahayana Pure Land Buddhist working on erradicating the 5 burnings....... I would be a Thervadan Pure Abodes Buddhist working on erradicating the 5 lower fetters. instead of chanting Nembutsu for buddhanusmrti i would be chanting Buddha ho for buddhanusmrti.
:cheers:
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Jikan » Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:55 pm

Is it necessary to believe that Buddha Shakyamuni uttered precisely those words as recorded in contemporary translations of the Pure Land sutras in order to learn and benefit from those sutras? To practice them meaningfully and effectively?

I remember reading about Buddha-vaca and Upaya somewhere...
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby futerko » Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:03 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:As you can see Amida Buddha is viewed as real and not a mere symbol.

Son of Buddha wrote:Page 5 on the PDF is where Amida Buddha and the Pure Land turn into simple symbolism

What he says is,

"...however, at the same time that a symbol points toward something, it also exists in a profound relationship with the thing itself. This is an important point, I believe." (p. 32)

The "important point" that you seem to be overlooking is that the word "symbol" here does not mean "purely imaginary" as you seem to want to suggest, quite the opposite, and that Shinran himself was very well aware of this issue.

The author also considers both dualistic and non-dual interpretations and the various influences on Shin Buddhism that have lead to the dualistic interpretation of today.

It seems clear to me that you, along with the mainstream Shin interpretations as outlined by the author, prefer a dualistic reading, and in this sense the author is totally accurate in his description.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Astus » Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:25 pm

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4167
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Tenso » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:37 pm

Jikan wrote:Is it necessary to believe that Buddha Shakyamuni uttered precisely those words as recorded in contemporary translations of the Pure Land sutras in order to learn and benefit from those sutras? To practice them meaningfully and effectively?



For a lot of people it does. I once heard a Theravadin say these are all "counterfeit sutras"
Tenso
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby thunderbumble » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:55 pm

futerko wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:As you can see Amida Buddha is viewed as real and not a mere symbol.

Son of Buddha wrote:Page 5 on the PDF is where Amida Buddha and the Pure Land turn into simple symbolism

What he says is,

"...however, at the same time that a symbol points toward something, it also exists in a profound relationship with the thing itself. This is an important point, I believe." (p. 32)

The "important point" that you seem to be overlooking is that the word "symbol" here does not mean "purely imaginary" as you seem to want to suggest, quite the opposite, and that Shinran himself was very well aware of this issue.

The author also considers both dualistic and non-dual interpretations and the various influences on Shin Buddhism that have lead to the dualistic interpretation of today.

It seems clear to me that you, along with the mainstream Shin interpretations as outlined by the author, prefer a dualistic reading, and in this sense the author is totally accurate in his description.


Exactly. Pureland is a Path. Amida Buddha exists within the Vow within me. We cross to the other Shore together.

When Avalokiteshvara broke his Vow and fell to pieces
In despair, he called for help. Amitabha, saved the many parts of Avalokiteshvra and put him together again.
(We are like this. We are many "parts". Really our parts are empty. Just experiences or past lives. My father, mother are also part of me in my mind).

Non duality is the heart of Mahayana. It's the Big Buddha!
The Buddha taught


So, bhikkhus, you should train in this way: The heart-deliverance of loving-kindness will be maintained in being and made much of by us, used as our vehicle, used as our foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed. That is how you should train
Samyutta Nikaya 20:3
thunderbumble
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:28 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Jikan » Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:37 pm

Nighthawk wrote:
Jikan wrote:Is it necessary to believe that Buddha Shakyamuni uttered precisely those words as recorded in contemporary translations of the Pure Land sutras in order to learn and benefit from those sutras? To practice them meaningfully and effectively?



For a lot of people it does. I once heard a Theravadin say these are all "counterfeit sutras"


Fair enough. For Mahayana practitioners, though, I wonder how important it is to assume that the historical Buddha uttered this or that sutra precisely as it has been translated by such eminent masters as Kumarajiva. I know very few who insist on that. For instance, when we learn in the Lotus Sutra that the lifespan of the Buddha is truly inconceivably long, it suggests that if nothing is really real, and anything is possible for a Buddha seeking to rain the Dharma on all beings regardless of capacity, then the limits of historical time and space seem much less relevant.

Buddha activity is inconceivable. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt, even if we don't know the full history of this text or that one? I think this is the attitude I've seen most often with regard to the provenance of the sutras.

I mean this for Mahayana generally as crystalized in East Asia, inclusive of but not limited to the Japanese Pure Land schools.

Namu Amidabutsu!
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby dude » Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:59 pm

For instance, when we learn in the Lotus Sutra that the lifespan of the Buddha is truly inconceivably long

What do you mean by this exactly? That the Buddha lived for a very long time? Or do you mean that the Buddha doesn't really die, but tells people he's leaving as a way to motivate their seeking minds?
dude
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:42 am

Jikan wrote:Is it necessary to believe that Buddha Shakyamuni uttered precisely those words as recorded in contemporary translations of the Pure Land sutras in order to learn and benefit from those sutras? To practice them meaningfully and effectively?

I remember reading about Buddha-vaca and Upaya somewhere...

with concern to the 18th vow,yes it is entirely necessary.If rebirth into the pure land peace and bliss is not real,then Dharmakaras entire purpose for his vows falls apart.

Then one must ask why even consider being reborn into a place that doesnt even exist to begin with.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:13 am

futerko wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:As you can see Amida Buddha is viewed as real and not a mere symbol.

Son of Buddha wrote:Page 5 on the PDF is where Amida Buddha and the Pure Land turn into simple symbolism

What he says is,

"...however, at the same time that a symbol points toward something, it also exists in a profound relationship with the thing itself. This is an important point, I believe." (p. 32)

The "important point" that you seem to be overlooking is that the word "symbol" here does not mean "purely imaginary" as you seem to want to suggest, quite the opposite, and that Shinran himself was very well aware of this issue.

The author also considers both dualistic and non-dual interpretations and the various influences on Shin Buddhism that have lead to the dualistic interpretation of today.

It seems clear to me that you, along with the mainstream Shin interpretations as outlined by the author, prefer a dualistic reading, and in this sense the author is totally accurate in his description.


the literal title of that 1st chapter is Amida Buddha real or a symbol,
Nowhere did the author say Amida Buddha is BOTH real and a symbol.
As a matter of FACT you didnt provide a single quote from the author that states that living beings upon death will be reborn into the Pureland of peace and Bliss to study under the "real" Amida Buddha.

In fact your quote never even said Amida Buddha is a real.

The author starts this paper off saying he is going to establish what is "true jodo shinshu" from what is "fake jodo shinshu".......and NOT ONE TIME did he even cover the basic purpose for Dharmakaras creation of the PureLand. Not one time did he say that living beings who strive for shinjin when they die they will be taken by Amitabha Buddha to the Pure Land of peace and bliss where they will be born out of the lotus embyo into a place that is conductive to attaining Enlightenment and they will know no more pain or suffering, and from there they will practice under Amida Buddha until they attain Enlightenment...

How can the author say he is teaching you "true jodo shinshu" when he doesnt even tell you the BASIC purpose of the Pure Land.

If you want to know what the TRUE jodo shinshu teachings are then read what Shinran Shonin actually taught.
http://www12.canvas.ne.jp/horai/kgss-g.htm

As far as Non duality/Middle way goes your "version" of the middle way doesnt even resemble the Buddhas teachings on the actual middle way subject.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html

And I can GUARRUNTEE you that the Third Turning supposed "dualism" is more in line with the middle way taught by the Buddha than your "version" of the middle way.
:cheers:
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby dude » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:15 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
Jikan wrote:Is it necessary to believe that Buddha Shakyamuni uttered precisely those words as recorded in contemporary translations of the Pure Land sutras in order to learn and benefit from those sutras? To practice them meaningfully and effectively?

I remember reading about Buddha-vaca and Upaya somewhere...

with concern to the 18th vow,yes it is entirely necessary.If rebirth into the pure land peace and bliss is not real,then Dharmakaras entire purpose for his vows falls apart.

Then one must ask why even consider being reborn into a place that doesnt even exist to begin with.


Would that not then require believing in something for which there is no evidence?
dude
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:23 am

dude wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
Jikan wrote:Is it necessary to believe that Buddha Shakyamuni uttered precisely those words as recorded in contemporary translations of the Pure Land sutras in order to learn and benefit from those sutras? To practice them meaningfully and effectively?

I remember reading about Buddha-vaca and Upaya somewhere...

with concern to the 18th vow,yes it is entirely necessary.If rebirth into the pure land peace and bliss is not real,then Dharmakaras entire purpose for his vows falls apart.

Then one must ask why even consider being reborn into a place that doesnt even exist to begin with.


Would that not then require believing in something for which there is no evidence?

Do you have evidence for Enlightenment that we can scientifically test and go on the news tommorroo and say Enlightenment is a scientific fact?

Do you have 100% undeniable uncontested scientific evidence that Ven. Nichiren Daishonin was the True Buddha?
With that said do you still have faith in the future attainment of Enlightenment,and do you still have faith that you are following the True Buddha(Ven.Nichiren)?
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby dude » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:58 am

The only scientific evidence I have is my own experience and the experiences of others.
I've performed and observed enough experiments to be convinced that it's ridiculous to doubt it any more.
Even so, and scientific evidence would indicate that I'm foolish in this way, my faith isn't absolute, but I believe it more than I don't believe it.
dude
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby futerko » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:01 am

Son of Buddha wrote:the literal title of that 1st chapter is Amida Buddha real or a symbol,

We must be looking at different texts then, because my copy reads, "II. IS AMIDA BUDDHA AN ENTITY OR A SYMBOL?"
(excuse the caps, I copied and pasted it directly so as not to fall into error)

That is also the second section (the first in my copy is named "Introduction") and what he says is,
    The conclusion that I will draw is that Amida Buddha exists as a symbol and that, as long as it is taken to be a substantial entity, there could be no “true Shin Buddhism.”
The mistake you appear to have made, literally, is taking the word "entity" as meaning "real."

Have I understood this correctly, or by "real" do you mean dharmakaya?
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby futerko » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:12 am

Son of Buddha wrote:As far as Non duality/Middle way goes your "version" of the middle way doesnt even resemble the Buddhas teachings on the actual middle way subject.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html


    Since all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta. From the perspective of the Theravada tradition, any quest for the discovery of selfhood, whether as a permanent individual self or as an absolute universal self, would have to be dismissed as a delusion, a metaphysical blunder born from a failure to properly comprehend the nature of concrete experience.

So the issue is very clear. The basis of "reality" as either substance or self is rejected by all schools of Buddhism.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby thunderbumble » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:41 am

futerko wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:the literal title of that 1st chapter is Amida Buddha real or a symbol,

We must be looking at different texts then, because my copy reads, "II. IS AMIDA BUDDHA AN ENTITY OR A SYMBOL?"
(excuse the caps, I copied and pasted it directly so as not to fall into error)

That is also the second section (the first in my copy is named "Introduction") and what he says is,
    The conclusion that I will draw is that Amida Buddha exists as a symbol and that, as long as it is taken to be a substantial entity, there could be no “true Shin Buddhism.”
The mistake you appear to have made, literally, is taking the word "entity" as meaning "real."

Have I understood this correctly, or by "real" do you mean dharmakaya?

I think the Son Of Buddha means by, "real" exists as a heavenly entity in a place called, Suhkavati.

To me, Amida Buddha is the sum Element of Wisdom and Compassion, Love. Is Love real?
Think. Are the Skandhas
1.Form
2.Sensation
3.Perception
4.Mental formations
5.Consciousness
Real?
Are we not a collection of experiences memories based on these? Or...do you believe in a soul? Or that the parts of the many are together as one?

If Love is real, then Amida Buddha is. Love is a Symbol/concept.
How can you say, "I love you"?

Subtle And Profound
The Buddha taught


So, bhikkhus, you should train in this way: The heart-deliverance of loving-kindness will be maintained in being and made much of by us, used as our vehicle, used as our foundation, established, consolidated, and properly managed. That is how you should train
Samyutta Nikaya 20:3
thunderbumble
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:28 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby futerko » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:57 am

thunderbumble wrote:I think the Son Of Buddha means by, "real" exists as a heavenly entity in a place called, Suhkavati.

Once you've been here a while you will realise that Son of Buddha is a substance ontologist who rejects everything empty in favor of a "True Self." i.e. not a Buddhist. :smile:
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:24 am

futerko wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:the literal title of that 1st chapter is Amida Buddha real or a symbol,

We must be looking at different texts then, because my copy reads, "II. IS AMIDA BUDDHA AN ENTITY OR A SYMBOL?"
(excuse the caps, I copied and pasted it directly so as not to fall into error)

That is also the second section (the first in my copy is named "Introduction") and what he says is,
    The conclusion that I will draw is that Amida Buddha exists as a symbol and that, as long as it is taken to be a substantial entity, there could be no “true Shin Buddhism.”
The mistake you appear to have made, literally, is taking the word "entity" as meaning "real."

Have I understood this correctly, or by "real" do you mean dharmakaya?


Real as in trully existing to be experienced not just some concept or allegory
And again your ignoring the fact the author doesnt cover the basic purpose for the Pure Land.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:09 am

futerko wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:As far as Non duality/Middle way goes your "version" of the middle way doesnt even resemble the Buddhas teachings on the actual middle way subject.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html


    Since all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta. From the perspective of the Theravada tradition, any quest for the discovery of selfhood, whether as a permanent individual self or as an absolute universal self, would have to be dismissed as a delusion, a metaphysical blunder born from a failure to properly comprehend the nature of concrete experience.

So the issue is very clear. The basis of "reality" as either substance or self is rejected by all schools of Buddhism.


I posted the thread to show you what the pali canons views on non Duality are and to show you that their non duality views are entirely in line with Third Turning teachings on the Subject i.e. BOTH the Pali canon and Buddha Nature Sutras are completely in agreement state that :

"t the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to chan
ge, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha's repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned exsistence."

Also I posted this as a discussion on the topic non duality,for which you didnt even comment on but instead decided to change the subject to atman......as I said before you "version" of middle way/non duality doesnt match up to the fitst and third turnings teachings on the subject.


Lastly I hate to break it to you but I was a Thervadan before I was a Mahayanist,and the pali canon is pretty clear that whatever is devoid of a self is and leads to suffering.

Now as far as True Self Buddhists sects is concerned there are actually ALOT of them in Buddhism

http://mobile.dudamobile.com/site/iep_u ... =true#2874

One of the 1st five schools was a True Self Buddhist school,and in fact they were of the Elder/Thervadan lineage and not even Mahayana. Also they were the largest Thervadan buddhist school in india.

Do you even know that there are entire thai thervadan forest dhamma schools that practice True Self......what you dont believe me?

Ajhan Maha Boowa one of the most respected and loved Thai Buddhists abbots ever in Thailand
And he was a True Self Buddhist as was his teacher and his school

(quote from him)As we are practising at this time and have been continually practising, proceeding in the path of avoiding all harms by stages, until the attainment of the great treasure of our hope (i.e., Nirvana). -From that it is possible to call 'niccam' because there is nothing involved that will trouble or disturb the mind. -It is not wrong to call it 'paramam sukham'. -Calling it atta wouldn't be wrong because it is the true self that is the self of the natural principle. There is no conventionality, however great or small or even minute, involved in the mind. But it does not mean the atta that is together with anatta that is another stage of conventionality which is still the path to nibbana. Source: Achariya Maha Boowa Nanasampanno, 'Kwan Tai Pen Thammada' ('Death is Normal'), Tham Chud Triam (Dhamma Collection for Preparation), 1976.

you also do realise that the Thervadan True Self Buddhist movement is taking over Thailand dont you?
(Where do you think I learned it from?I was a True Self Buddhist 3yrs before I ever touched the Nirvana Sutra)

Well I hope you are now better informed in the subject......
Also dont be surprised if you meet a forest Dhamma monk and he tells you he experienced the True Self :anjali:
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Namo Amitabha Buddha, True and False

Postby Son of Buddha » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:23 am

Hey ThunderBumble your post had to many embeds(im on my phone so its hard to remove all you text and do quotes.ect)

But this is in resonse to your last question.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html
"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

As you can see from the quote both me and the Buddha think that whatever is not self leads to suffering,and whatever is self does not lead to suffering.....

So I hope that answers all your questions concering my views on the 5 aggregates.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

>