Cosmology and Pure Land

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Astus » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:30 pm

zamotcr wrote:can you delineate the major principles of what Buddha said about cosmology? Which correct views one should adopt, a proper way of understanding. I want to know more to study in that line :)


See this: Buddhist cosmology and Ten spiritual realms.
Further, the Abhidharmakosa (vol 2) has a description of the spatial and temporal cosmology.

I want to but I feel lost. There a lot of disagreements between masters, every Master explain the same things in very different ways.


Start with the basics: Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi. And when you have a difficult topic, you can always open a discussion here on the forum.

Perhaps they are here, but our senses are limited by something that does not let us see them around us.


In Buddhism it is called the "divine eye" with what it is possible to see spirits and gods. You might also call it an "inner eye", like what is used in meditation. You might think then that it is mental, however, just as in dreams, you can see forms, hear sounds, etc., so it is physical.
"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: 4142
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:46 pm

Astus wrote:See this: Buddhist cosmology and Ten spiritual realms.
Further, the Abhidharmakosa (vol 2) has a description of the spatial and temporal cosmology.


Start with the basics: Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi. And when you have a difficult topic, you can always open a discussion here on the forum.


Thanks Astus! This is a long read list. I already read the Wikipedia articles, I did in the past and keep doing.

In Buddhism it is called the "divine eye" with what it is possible to see spirits and gods. You might also call it an "inner eye", like what is used in meditation. You might think then that it is mental, however, just as in dreams, you can see forms, hear sounds, etc., so it is physical.


I got know what you mean with physical. I was using this term to denote the world we see around with our normal eyes, well, you got what I meant :rolling:
That does not mean that if the Pure Land is physical (in your description of the term) then it is observable by our own human eyes, as we can't see neither Devas realms, so why Pure Land would be an exception? After all is outside Samsara, and is a Buddha realm (would be wrong to consider Pure Land as or in the 10th Realm (Buddha realm)? )

My doubts started when I saw a video of Master Sheng Yen, when he said that Pure Land is a galaxy in the west, so I thought that is was visible by our normal human eyes (if we could get there somehow). Of course Pure Land is above all and inside everyone. Immanent and transcended?

Before starting to touch Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi, do you think is a good idea to start with "Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations"? :reading:

Thanks Astus and everyone for your patience.
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Astus » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:38 pm

zamotcr wrote:That does not mean that if the Pure Land is physical (in your description of the term) then it is observable by our own human eyes, as we can't see neither Devas realms, so why Pure Land would be an exception? After all is outside Samsara, and is a Buddha realm (would be wrong to consider Pure Land as or in the 10th Realm (Buddha realm)? )

My doubts started when I saw a video of Master Sheng Yen, when he said that Pure Land is a galaxy in the west, so I thought that is was visible by our normal human eyes (if we could get there somehow). Of course Pure Land is above all and inside everyone. Immanent and transcended?

Before starting to touch Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Zhiyi, do you think is a good idea to start with "Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations"?


Being a buddha-land doesn't necessarily mean that it is outside of samsara, but that was a topic of another thread. Sukhavati is without suffering, so it is necessarily outside of samsara, and because it has all sorts of residents it is a mixed buddha land. Also note that in Tiantai's presentation of the ten realms there is also the teaching of "three thousand realms in a thought", that is, that all realms contain all the others.

You could say it is in a galaxy to the west. Why not? Not that we could just explore it anyway. Saying that Sukhavati is "immanent and transcendent" would imply a symbolic interpretation, and that's OK, but then it is a symbol for enlightenment, and as such it is not understood that way normally if one practises for birth in the Pure Land through the vow of Amitabha.

Yes, it is a good introductory book.
"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: 4142
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:01 pm

Astus wrote:Being a buddha-land doesn't necessarily mean that it is outside of samsara, but that was a topic of another thread. Sukhavati is without suffering, so it is necessarily outside of samsara, and because it has all sorts of residents it is a mixed buddha land. Also note that in Tiantai's presentation of the ten realms there is also the teaching of "three thousand realms in a thought", that is, that all realms contain all the others.


True, Buddha-Land is almost a generic term. We have the so-called Pure Land Inner-Court of Maitreya and is inside Samsara. Also Shakyamuni, when he was here, this I think, can be consider his Buddha-land.
About realms inside realms I was thinking: If Sukhavati is a Buddha Realm (10th Spiritual Realm), the 10th Realm also contains the ten realms too, so beings there can be mixed, I think :)

Astus wrote:You could say it is in a galaxy to the west. Why not? Not that we could just explore it anyway.


But, if Sukhavati were a "normal" galaxy, and with that I mean, observable or visible to human eyes, wouldn't that make it part of Samsara? Everything we see with our humans eyes born and dies, stars, planets, people, every living being.

Anyhow, if by any mean PL is a galaxy that can be seen by human perception (which I doubt, I don't think our normal eyes can see it, unless I'm wrong, which is probable) perhaps we will never find it, and if we are near, perhaps we will pass without notice it, I don't think our karma would let us go there without Buddha recitation and permission.

Also, it is said that Amitabha and the sages will come for us, after death, and will bring us to PL. Well, they are a physical form not visible for humans, it seems, but for the "after death body" ( :tongue: ) they are very visible.

Astus wrote:Saying that Sukhavati is "immanent and transcendent" would imply a symbolic interpretation, and that's OK, but then it is a symbol for enlightenment, and as such it is not understood that way normally if one practises for birth in the Pure Land through the vow of Amitabha.


Oh I wasn't implying a symbolic interpretation, but I was saying that Pure Land is both, a realm to be born and too at the same time, a path to walk on Earth, we are not far from Amitabha, he is inside us too. That what I was saying :)

Astus wrote:Yes, it is a good introductory book.


Thanks! I will try with it. Any flaws in it I should be aware?
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:20 am

zamotcr wrote:But, if Sukhavati were a "normal" galaxy, and with that I mean, observable or visible to human eyes, wouldn't that make it part of Samsara? Everything we see with our humans eyes born and dies, stars, planets, people, every living being.


Well thinking it again it can be in another galaxy, like our devas are here in our galaxy but invisible to us, the other galaxy may have Ten Spiritual Realms too, I think, so it can be in another galaxy but we cannot see it. Just guessing...
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Astus » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:27 pm

zamotcr wrote:But, if Sukhavati were a "normal" galaxy, and with that I mean, observable or visible to human eyes, wouldn't that make it part of Samsara? Everything we see with our humans eyes born and dies, stars, planets, people, every living being.


Samsara and nirvana are not places but types of experience.
"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: 4142
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:41 pm

Astus wrote:Samsara and nirvana are not places but types of experience.


True, true. But in Sukhavati life is limitless, without any suffering, nor birth and death. If Sukhavati were here, visible to us, that would not make it limitless, people would born and die, that's what we see around, even stars and planets.

What I meant before is that with all thus wonderful descriptions of Pure Land, it seems to be out of our ordinary perception, outside of our experience. Placing PL in our human visible universe would limit the Pure Land to physic laws, to life and death, etc.

Also, I thought that Samsara were the Six Spiritual Realms, which are basically the 28 planes of existence. But of course I'm always wrong :lol:
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Arjan Dirkse » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:50 pm

The Pure Land is right here. The problem is recognizing.

I don' t even think the faith is that important. If faith were so important, wouldn't that be problematic? If no one "had faith", Amitabha would look like a screw up for not saving anyone. Amitabha is just the saving grace in us, the good and compassionate instincts we have to save each other from the pains of delusion and ignorance.

You're in the Pure Land, like it or not. Get your lotus flowers right here.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Astus » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:40 pm

zamotcr wrote:Also, I thought that Samsara were the Six Spiritual Realms, which are basically the 28 planes of existence. But of course I'm always wrong :lol:


Yes, samsara consists of the six realms and 28 planes. At the same time, all of that are products of karma and forms of experience.

Sukhavati is outside of samsara in the sense that there is no suffering and people definitely attain enlightenment there.
"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: 4142
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Astus » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:46 pm

Arjan Dirkse wrote:The Pure Land is right here. The problem is recognizing.


That's a very symbolist self-power approach. Most of the Pure Land teachings (e.g. Shandao, Yongming, Yinguang; Honen, Shinran) are not like that, and aspiring for birth in the Pure Land - as an actual place - is common in most Mahayana schools.

It is also quite pointless to give the same teachings already told in a complicated metaphorical way.
"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: 4142
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:52 pm

Astus wrote:Sukhavati is outside of samsara in the sense that there is no suffering and people definitely attain enlightenment there.


So, at the end, Sukhavati can be anywhere then. Perhaps it's a galaxy or a planet (talking in human senses) or it can even be something higher than a heaven (in the sense that is something humans cannot see). Sutras does not solve the location (because is not important for the practice). Only commentaries, like Shandao who said that Pure Land were a Reward Land and it is said that the Reward Body is only visible to higher beings (Bodhisattvas).

Also, other masters taught that spiritual realms and worlds are limitless. How many worlds are there we cannot see with human eyes, perhaps Pure Land is in one of such realms or "plane" (which would be the proper word for this?)
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:22 pm

From Mahayana Buddhism, page 183:
Commonly bodhisattvas become fully enlightened not on this earth but in one of the highest realms.
A Buddha on then attaining Buddhahood immediately manifests his
Enjoyment Body, ornamented with the various marks, surrounded by a Pure Land and a
retinue of advanced Bodhisattvas, teaching the Mahayana. The Enjoyment Body and Pure
Land are made of his own omniscient wisdom awareness, and not gross matter. Moreover,
all that the Enjoyment Body sees are seen as not being separate phenomena from his own
mind.
He occupies, therefore, the strange magical world of the dharmadhatu familiar
from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

At the same time the Buddha spontaneously manifests myriads of Transformation Bodies according
to the needs of sentient beings. There is no need for a Buddha to ponder the best way to help sentient beings.

The Enjoyment Body Buddha remains until there are no suffering sentient beings left unenlightened. The dharmakaya,
the Buddha’s radiant omniscient mind stream and its attendant emptinesses, remains for ever.
There can be no end to a continuum of consciousness, for what could cause it to cease?


Basically, what I can understand from here, is that Pure Lands are Reward Lands, only perceptible by Buddhas and
Boddhisatva's and of course by the beings that Buddhas permit to be there.

Does not seems to be an objective location (ie. From Andromeda galaxy, turn around the next planet and you'll arrive) but more like a realm created
by Buddha's mind and we are allowed to experienced it with our mind after death, a realm created by Buddha's merits. So it seems to be a higher realm
(not the world perceptible with our five human senses). But again, I may be wrong.


Also, I like this from here http://purelandway.wordpress.com/objections-to-pure-land-faq/:

So, instead of thinking of worlds as solid things, if you think of them in more philosophically idealistic terms, that is, thinking of them more as mind-stuff rather than matter-stuff, the idea of a Pure Land a million miles from here is not implausible. Clearly, the fact that the Pure Land is “west” of here should give one a clue that the Buddha wasn’t referring to a physically locatable place on the Universe map! It’s not, like, over there by Andromeda or something.


Knowing that there exists more realms than human, why do we have to place or locate the Pure Land in our "Human Realm" or "Human plane"?
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Arjan Dirkse » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 pm

Astus wrote:
Arjan Dirkse wrote:The Pure Land is right here. The problem is recognizing.


That's a very symbolist self-power approach. Most of the Pure Land teachings (e.g. Shandao, Yongming, Yinguang; Honen, Shinran) are not like that, and aspiring for birth in the Pure Land - as an actual place - is common in most Mahayana schools.

It is also quite pointless to give the same teachings already told in a complicated metaphorical way.


I know it's not the most common or mainstream interpretation, it's just the way I see it. Aspiring for birth in some other realm doesn't really appeal to me, there is no other realm but this one right now. By "changing our minds" right here, right now we need to learn to see this world as Pure Land, and make it that.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:00 pm

Arjan Dirkse wrote:
Astus wrote:
Arjan Dirkse wrote:The Pure Land is right here. The problem is recognizing.


That's a very symbolist self-power approach. Most of the Pure Land teachings (e.g. Shandao, Yongming, Yinguang; Honen, Shinran) are not like that, and aspiring for birth in the Pure Land - as an actual place - is common in most Mahayana schools.

It is also quite pointless to give the same teachings already told in a complicated metaphorical way.


I know it's not the most common or mainstream interpretation, it's just the way I see it. Aspiring for birth in some other realm doesn't really appeal to me, there is no other realm but this one right now. By "changing our minds" right here, right now we need to learn to see this world as Pure Land, and make it that.


Amida Buddha is infinite.
Thus his Pure Realm is infinite as well
because you can't put an infinite Buddha inside a finite realm.
Sukhavati extends all the way to the tip of your nose
if not further.

If you think it only appears when you die,
you are only half right.
Who "YOU" are ceases and arises constantly;
you die and are born every second.
You can experience Pure Realm right now.
Just quit taking refuge in your limited mind
and take refuge in Infinite mind
inseparable from Amitabha.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby Arjan Dirkse » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:32 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Amida Buddha is infinite.
Thus his Pure Realm is infinite as well
because you can't put an infinite Buddha inside a finite realm.
Sukhavati extends all the way to the tip of your nose
if not further.

If you think it only appears when you die,
you are only half right.
Who "YOU" are ceases and arises constantly;
you die and are born every second.
You can experience Pure Realm right now.
Just quit taking refuge in your limited mind
and take refuge in Infinite mind
inseparable from Amitabha.
.
.
.



Emm, yeah I think I agree, if I understand you correctly that is. :twothumbsup:

It's not self power, in order to experience the Pure Land, I give myself over to other power, take refuge in Amida, or the Buddha of Infinite Light/Life.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:51 pm

Astus wrote:Physical in Buddhism means that something is perceived by the five bodily senses. The only purely mental realm in Buddhism is called the arupaloka, where no form exists at all. That means that from Avici to Akanishta everything is physical. Since Sukhavati has many physical characteristics, as described in the sutras, it is also considered physical in its Buddhist sense.


Indeed it has physical characteristic, but since Pure Land is outside Triple Realm, it is neither part of Desire, nor Form nor Formlessness realms, so it is not the same physicality as us, maybe its subtler matter rather than gross mater like us, I don't know.

I was thinking in all the replies and taking suggestions I have concluded the following:

The cosmologies in the sutras are completely different from our science cosmology. The cosmology in the sutras does not translate very well into planets, etc.
In the sutras heavenly realms were describes floors in Mount Sumeru, or something like that, not necessarily as different dimensions like modern Buddhist view them now. In sutras, cosmologies had Sumeru, four continents, etc.

What do we know about Pure Land? We know is a world, created by Amitabha's merits, we know we can born there, we know we will progress there, without suffering and we will escape from Samsara.
Where is it? According to Sutra's cosmology, it is very far away. It does not said is a world in our human perception, nor in any of the gods perception. Since cosmologies does not translate well, we can just guess, only that. It may be another realm, or it may be a world like us, but we our mind is blind and cannot see it. Anyhow, sutras only tell us is far away, in which way or how, does not matter.

So, like Astus said, we have to "to become a proper philosopher", so, from several reads and my own conclusions this is what I get:

For me, since PL it is beyond Samsara, it just mean is not in any of the 6 Spiritual Realms, beyond Samsara may just mean any of the 4 Higher Realms. Also, outside of Triple Realm mean is not located in any of the 28 planes of existence, but outside, our visible world is inside Desire realm. Several masters pointed out that Pure Land is a Enjoyment Land, so if we take this, it is invisible to us, because just Higher Beings like Bodhisattva's can see enjoyment bodies and lands. Having this in consideration, Amitabha's Pure Land is not subject to physic laws, nor to birth nor death. Is not subject to our wordly laws, because it is not the same level of reality as us. Saying that Pure Land is visible to human eyes or is in the same level of reality as us is nonsense, because that would make Pure Land subject to the same issues as us: birth, death and hence suffering. This would make Pure Land subject to the laws of the universe and part of any of the 28 planes of existence.

Of course there may be Pure Transformation-Lands, like this world will be in the future, when Maitreya comes. But this Transformation Pure Land is inside Samsara, better scenario, but still Samsara.
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby zamotcr » Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:06 pm

zamotcr wrote:
Astus wrote:Physical in Buddhism means that something is perceived by the five bodily senses. The only purely mental realm in Buddhism is called the arupaloka, where no form exists at all. That means that from Avici to Akanishta everything is physical. Since Sukhavati has many physical characteristics, as described in the sutras, it is also considered physical in its Buddhist sense.


Indeed it has physical characteristic, but since Pure Land is outside Triple Realm, it is neither part of Desire, nor Form nor Formlessness realms, so it is not the same physicality as us, maybe its subtler matter rather than gross mater like us, I don't know.

I was thinking in all the replies and taking suggestions I have concluded the following:

The cosmologies in the sutras are completely different from our science cosmology. The cosmology in the sutras does not translate very well into planets, etc.
In the sutras heavenly realms were describes floors in Mount Sumeru, or something like that, not necessarily as different dimensions like modern Buddhist view them now. In sutras, cosmologies had Sumeru, four continents, etc.

What do we know about Pure Land? We know is a world, created by Amitabha's merits, we know we can born there, we know we will progress there, without suffering and we will escape from Samsara.
Where is it? According to Sutra's cosmology, it is very far away. It does not said is a world in our human perception, nor in any of the gods perception. Since cosmologies does not translate well, we can just guess, only that. It may be another realm, or it may be a world like us, but we our mind is blind and cannot see it. Anyhow, sutras only tell us is far away, in which way or how, does not matter.

So, like Astus said, we have to "to become a proper philosopher", so, from several reads and my own conclusions this is what I get:

For me, since PL it is beyond Samsara, it just mean is not in any of the 6 Spiritual Realms, beyond Samsara may just mean any of the 4 Higher Realms. Also, outside of Triple Realm mean is not located in any of the 28 planes of existence, but outside, our visible world is inside Desire realm. Several masters pointed out that Pure Land is a Enjoyment Land, so if we take this, it is invisible to us, because just Higher Beings like Bodhisattva's can see enjoyment bodies and lands. Having this in consideration, Amitabha's Pure Land is not subject to physic laws, nor to birth nor death. Is not subject to our wordly laws, because it is not the same level of reality as us. Saying that Pure Land is visible to human eyes or is in the same level of reality as us is nonsense, because that would make Pure Land subject to the same issues as us: birth, death and hence suffering. This would make Pure Land subject to the laws of the universe and part of any of the 28 planes of existence.

Of course there may be Pure Transformation-Lands, like this world will be in the future, when Maitreya comes. But this Transformation Pure Land is inside Samsara, better scenario, but still Samsara.



Any thoughts on this?
User avatar
zamotcr
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:11 am
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica

Re: Cosmology and Pure Land

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:57 pm

zamotcr wrote: Any thoughts on this?

The total sum of all of your (our) experiences in this lifetime, including my thoughts on this, consist of an interpretation (through awareness) of electrical impulses happening inside a dark, damp little round calcium box perched on the top of the spine. You can only compare the 'realness' of Sukhavati to that.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Previous

Return to Pure Land

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: supermaxv and 12 guests

>