Dharma Wheel

Astus wrote:

LastLegend wrote:Both will lead to Buddhahood. The only the difference is the time it takes to become Buddha.

How so? Chan is the school of sudden enlightenment (not gradual development on the bodhisattva path), and the Pure Land path has 100% guaranteed buddhahood in one lifetime.

If I remember correctly, in Mahayana teachings, Bodhisattvas have to go to Pure Lands to become Buddhas. Or they might be "stucked" just like Arahants are stucked in Nirvana until they wish to go to Pure Lands.

LastLegend wrote:If I remember correctly, in Mahayana teachings, Bodhisattvas have to go to Pure Lands to become Buddhas. Or they might be "stucked" just like Arahants are stucked in Nirvana until they wish to go to Pure Lands.

There is no such necessity for bodhisattvas, they even work on building their own buddha-lands. What stops them from getting stuck is great compassion and the proper understanding of prajnaparamita.

Astus wrote:

LastLegend wrote:If I remember correctly, in Mahayana teachings, Bodhisattvas have to go to Pure Lands to become Buddhas. Or they might be "stucked" just like Arahants are stucked in Nirvana until they wish to go to Pure Lands.

There is no such necessity for bodhisattvas, they even work on building their own buddha-lands. What stops them from getting stuck is great compassion and the proper understanding of prajnaparamita.

But Bodhisattvas might not have the necessary Wisdom like Buddhas do to build Buddha lands.

LastLegend wrote:But Bodhisattvas might not have the necessary Wisdom like Buddhas do to build Buddha lands.

Buddha-lands are created/completed once they become buddhas. If you want to carry on with this topic I recommend a separate thread.

I do want to carry on with the topic.

LastLegend wrote:

One of the philosophies in relation to Dzogchen would be the Bardo States, where one will meet the lights, sounds and rays as object or not.
So the philosophy behind is about the object in its clear or defiled state. Clear and Lhun drub, in the Natural State and dirty in the mind of dualistic karma.

There must be a medium there that assists with the process such as lights from Buddha. Or you see the Guru as Buddha?

The lights etc. are in Dzogchen not seen as an object. They are self-emergent or they come out of the own mind.
Further is the Buddha the one who did teach Dzogchen and the Guru is the Rigdzin, who transmits the Dzogchen Teachings from his Dzogchen Master to us.
So an unbroken lineage is here a Dzogchen Lineage which always go back to the first Teacher, like Drenpa Namkha, Garab Dorje, Kuntu Zangpo.

Mutsog Marro
KY

My point is there must be some relation to Buddha (which Buddha?).

As the case for Pure Land, when one recites Amitabha, lights from Amitabha shine upon the person and over the time the lights help to decrease or get rid of defilements. In order to go to Buddha's land, one has to have some relationship with this Buddha some how-vows, faith, recitation, etc. That's what the practice aims towards. Otherwise, it's no difference from any other practice. Pure Land is one's effort combined with Buddha's efforts or lights. And to recite Amitabha Buddha is to recite one's own Amitabha combined with Amitabha Buddha's efforts. Amitabha Buddha=3 bodies. So to recite a Buddha is to also recite 3 Bodies of Buddha.

So I am wondering if it is any difference in Dozgchen.

LastLegend wrote: Even Pure Land is the highest. How can you dispute that?

Well I don't know if anyone can or not. I've heard of Pure Land since some years ago, although I'd like to learn more about it.

Who was the first Nirmanakaya Bodhisattva that started the Pure Land lineage?

Just to be clear I am not claiming Pure Land is the highest. I was just making a point.

It's either Mahasthanaprata Bodhisattva or Samantabhadra Bodhisattva. Not Sure.

There is no such thing as a Pure Land lineage, although in China and in Jodoshinshu they like to talk about certain patriarchs. There are several sutras talking about different buddha-lands, including the land of Amita Buddha. They are the primary sources of the teaching.

Astus wrote:There is no such thing as a Pure Land lineage, although in China and in Jodoshinshu they like to talk about certain patriarchs. There are several sutras talking about different buddha-lands, including the land of Amita Buddha. They are the primary sources of the teaching.

Yes, no transmission. But there are Sutras about Pure Land.

Avatamsaka Sutra, Chapter 40: The Practices and Vows of the Bodhisattva Universal Worthy
http://www.truehappiness.ws/The_Avatams ... tices.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding the path of Chan, yes they will become Bodhisattvas and will continue to work towards becoming Buddhas on their own if they choose to. However, if they go to Buddha lands, they will become Buddhas faster. Like we learn from those that have come before us, so we call these teachers or masters. They can show us the path better.

There are different interpretations and presentations of Chan, however, those who fully embrace the teaching of sudden enlightenment, don't aspire to aeons of bodhisattva practice but complete attainment in this life. As for Amita Buddha's Pure Land, it is a path with assurance of attainment, but that doesn't mean it skips the common stages of the bodhisattva path. That's why many teach the combined practice of Chan and Pure Land.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Who was the first Nirmanakaya Bodhisattva that started the Pure Land lineage?

As Astus says, there is no Pure Land lineage but merely a series of patriarchs. The Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutras date, according to some scholars, from around the 1st century BCE making it one of the oldest - if not the oldest - forms of Mahayana.

To Astus

Yes. But Pure Land is also a school for Bodhisattvas. It is very easy for sentient beings who practice Pure Land to become Bodhisattvas there given that they also practice 10 Virtuous Acts of body, speech, and mind before taking rebirth. So comparing Bodhisattvas in Pure Land to Bodhisattvas who don't abide in Pure Land, it does take longer. Why? Because they get the support and guidance there...like walking versus biking.

But this is not to undermine Chan in any ways. Chan itself is a valid path and complete path on its own.

There are different interpretations and presentations of Chan, however, those who fully embrace the teaching of sudden enlightenment, don't aspire to aeons of bodhisattva practice but complete attainment in this life.

How do you explain this?

LastLegend wrote:How do you explain this?

It is as often said in Chan: see nature, become buddha. The mind is buddha, realising this you become buddha. What else remains?

Astus wrote:

LastLegend wrote:How do you explain this?

It is as often said in Chan: see nature, become buddha. The mind is buddha, realising this you become buddha. What else remains?

Eventually will become Buddha?

There is no really past, present, and future right? Only to sentient beings there is.

LastLegend wrote:Eventually will become Buddha?

There is no really past, present, and future right? Only to sentient beings there is.

Not eventually, but it is what becoming buddha is, seeing the true nature of mind.

Okay I see, thanks for your replies.

I should have been more clear, as I originally meant the Pure Land School of Buddhism, not necessarily the Pure Land Itself (which I think you figured out anyway).

Anyhow now I have some great references for further learning in regard to Pure Land Buddhism.

Astus wrote:

LastLegend wrote:Eventually will become Buddha?

There is no really past, present, and future right? Only to sentient beings there is.

Not eventually, but it is what becoming buddha is, seeing the true nature of mind.

Ok becoming Buddha.

But at that moment become the fully enlightened Buddha?

LastLegend wrote:Ok becoming Buddha.

But at that moment become the fully enlightened Buddha?

Exactly.

"To practice in every moment of thought is called the true nature. To be enlightened to this Dharma is the Dharma of prajñā, to cultivate this practice is the practice of prajñā. To not cultivate this is to be an ordinary [unenlightened] person. To cultivate this in a single moment of thought is to be equivalent to the Buddha in one’s own body.
Good friends, ordinary people are buddhas, and the afflictions are bodhi. With a preceding moment of deluded thought, one was an ordinary person, but with a succeeding moment of enlightened thought, one is a buddha. To be attached to one’s sensory realms in a preceding moment of thought is affliction, but to transcend the realms in a succeeding moment of thought is bodhi." (Platform Sutra, ch. 2, tr. McRae)