Pure Land Contradicts Buddha Teachings....

[Aemilius]

Yes, I have seen several modern Pureland books that speak of returning to the Pureland. I have wondered what is the origin of this
line of thinking? What is its doctrinal basis?
Is it some kind of modern, popular, pseudo-buddhist version of "falling from the state of being in Paradise" ?

I haven't found anything like that in the older works of Pureland Budddhism, like ShanTao's Commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo Ching or in Dawn of the Chinese Pureland Buddhist Doctrine by Kenneth K. Tanaka, and others...

In the 48 vows, Three Pureland sutras or in Buddhism generally, there is no basis for speaking of "returning to the Pureland" or of having of "fallen from the Pureland", which is kind of implied in certain modern books of Pureland Buddhism.

According to the 48 vows you will progress through the various levels of the bodhisattva development, if you attain birth in Sukhavati.
The 48 vows: http://www.en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amita ... eight_vows

[Admin_PC]

Yes, I have seen several modern Pureland books that speak of returning to the Pureland. I have wondered what is the origin of this
line of thinking? What is its doctrinal basis? Is it some kind of modern, popular, pseudo-buddhist version of "falling from the state of being in Paradise" ?

Not modern at all.
Has been talked about at least since Honen's time and also after Shantao.
Part of the official doctrine of Shin Buddhism (Genso Eko)
Like it or not, this Saha world is still Shakyamuni's Buddha Land and the sutra states explicitly travel to any other Buddha Land is possible.

In the 48 vows, Three Pureland sutras or in Buddhism generally, there is no basis for speaking of "returning to the Pureland" or of having of "fallen from the Pureland", which is kind of implied in certain modern books of Pureland Buddhism.

No falling involved, it's part of "continuing on the path of the Bodhisattva" as described in the Larger Sutra.

According to the 48 vows you will progress through the various levels of the bodhisattva development, if you attain birth in Sukhavati.
The 48 vows: http://www.en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amita ... eight_vows

Yes, and part of doing so is "making offerings at other Buddha Lands" (ie "practicing Dharma in other Buddha Lands"), of which this happens to be one.

From your own quote:

Vow 22
Provided I become a Buddha, the Bodhisattvas who come to be born in that country of mine are to be bound to that one birth only, then to become Buddha-elect (Ekajatipratibuddhas), with the exception of those who by their own free will remain in the stage of Bodhisattva-hood for the sake of delivering various beings, wearing the armour of vows to travel to all worlds, performing their Boddhisattva-duties and accumulating their stock of merit, who wish to serve the Buddhas of ten quarters, and convert the various beings in number like grains of sand of the River Ganges to the highest perfect knowledge, whose activities have surpassed the stage of ordinary beings, and who practise the universal virtue of Samantabhadra, otherwise may I not attain the enlightenment.

[DGA]

Yes, I have seen several modern Pureland books that speak of returning to the Pureland. I have wondered what is the origin of this
line of thinking? What is its doctrinal basis?
Is it some kind of modern, popular, pseudo-buddhist version of "falling from the state of being in Paradise" ?

I haven't found anything like that in the older works of Pureland Budddhism, like ShanTao's Commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo Ching or in Dawn of the Chinese Pureland Buddhist Doctrine by Kenneth K. Tanaka, and others...

In the 48 vows, Three Pureland sutras or in Buddhism generally, there is no basis for speaking of "returning to the Pureland" or of having of "fallen from the Pureland", which is kind of implied in certain modern books of Pureland Buddhism.

According to the 48 vows you will progress through the various levels of the bodhisattva development, if you attain birth in Sukhavati.
The 48 vows: http://www.en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amita ... eight_vows

I wonder if those translators may have been reading Heidegger or English translations of Heidegger. That may explain the "fallen" language.

[Admin_PC]

I wonder if those translators may have been reading Heidegger or English translations of Heidegger. That may explain the "fallen" language.

If the dispute is over the idea of "falling", then a quote that explicitly references "falling from the Pure Land" would be helpful for sure.

[DGA]

I wonder if those translators may have been reading Heidegger or English translations of Heidegger. That may explain the "fallen" language.

If the dispute is over the idea of "falling", then a quote that explicitly references "falling from the Pure Land" would be helpful for sure.

I agree. I think the "falling" thing may exist only in translation, but not in the tradition or the text as traditionally understood. It would be more convincing if an advocate of this view would provide a source for it in the source language.

[Aemilius]

Yes, I have seen several modern Pureland books that speak of returning to the Pureland. I have wondered what is the origin of this
line of thinking? What is its doctrinal basis? Is it some kind of modern, popular, pseudo-buddhist version of "falling from the state of being in Paradise" ?

Not modern at all.
Has been talked about at least since Honen's time and also after Shantao.
Part of the official doctrine of Shin Buddhism (Genso Eko)
Like it or not, this Saha world is still Shakyamuni's Buddha Land and the sutra states explicitly travel to any other Buddha Land is possible.

In the 48 vows, Three Pureland sutras or in Buddhism generally, there is no basis for speaking of "returning to the Pureland" or of having of "fallen from the Pureland", which is kind of implied in certain modern books of Pureland Buddhism.

No falling involved, it's part of "continuing on the path of the Bodhisattva" as described in the Larger Sutra.

According to the 48 vows you will progress through the various levels of the bodhisattva development, if you attain birth in Sukhavati.
The 48 vows: http://www.en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amita ... eight_vows

Yes, and part of doing so is "making offerings at other Buddha Lands" (ie "practicing Dharma in other Buddha Lands"), of which this happens to be one.

I do not deny the vow 22. It makes an exception to the general principles that function in the Pureland. When the Longer Sutra describes making offerings to Buddhas in other realms, it says that the inhabitants of the Sukhavati will then return to Sukhavati before to the mealtime!
I don't think that rebirth to Sahaworld is intended by that statement of making offerings!
The 48 vows say that beings in Sukhavati can travel through teleportation. "Taking rebirth" would be clumsy and quite unnecessary, as a means of travelling to other worlds.

Chinese masters of the modern era, Ven. Hsuan Hua and Yogi C. M. Chen, never mention the idea of returning in their teachings about Sukhavati. I have read their teachings many times.
I have also heard teachings about the Sukhavati Pureland from teachers of different traditions many many times, beginning in 1970's, but mostly in 1980's and 1990's. Ole Nydal is the only one whom I have heard mention the concept of coming from the Pureland, (albeit in case of some people and not of everyone), (this was said in the summer of 1989).

Why can you not give up your attachment to a particular world and a particular country? People have merely built up a strong ego, a strong attachment, of belonging to a particular country, to a particular world. Because of this attachment they feel they are compelled to return to the place that they have identified themselves with so strongly. I am in favour of nonreturning.

Dharma means giving up one's self-identity, seeing that it is empty and impermanent.
What was your self-identity before this life? Before this historical era?
This means giving up the extreme of patriotism; because in other births you can belong to other countries, other cultures, and other realms of being.

[Admin_PC]

I do not deny the vow 22. It makes an exception to the general principles that function in the Pureland. When the Longer Sutra describes making offerings to Buddhas in other realms, it says that the inhabitants of the Sukhavati will then return to Sukhavati before to the mealtime!
I don't think that rebirth to Sahaworld is intended by that statement of making offerings!
The 48 vows say that beings in Sukhavati can travel through teleportation. "Taking rebirth" would be clumsy and quite unnecessary, as a means of travelling to other worlds.

Apparently you didn't read the sutra close enough and perhaps forgot that time passes differently in different realms.
"Before lunch time" in the Pure Land could be thousands of years.

“In addition, these Bodhisattvas, on their way to Buddhahood, will never again go down the evil life-journeys. They have command of transcendental powers and know the past lives of themselves and others. However, if they choose to be reborn elsewhere, in an evil world with the five turbidities, resembling my world, they will manifest themselves to resemble the inhabitants there.”

I have also heard teachings about the Sukhavati Pureland from teachers of different traditions many many times, beginning in 1970's, but mostly in 1980's and 1990's. Ole Nydal is the only one whom I have heard mention the concept of coming from the Pureland, (albeit in case of some people and not of everyone), (this was said in the summer of 1989).

Do you even read sutras? Or follow the traditions of the various schools? Avalokitesvara and Mahasthamaprapta are both Pure Land sages who've been known to manifest in this Saha world. Dalai Lama ring a bell? Monk Yin Guang (13th patriarch) was widely held to be a manifestation of Mahasthamaprapta in China, as Honen was in Japan.

Why can you not give up your attachment to a particular world and a particular country?

And yet you're the one criticizing Pure Landers for giving up this Saha world... curious... Wanting to learn from a Buddha directly his hardly hanging on to one's ego.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't deny that I'm full of ego and attachment. I'm also full of anger and ignorance. This is precisely why I need the Pure Land path. I'm not giving up on my family and leaving them to starve while I go renounce in the forest. I'm also not going to pretend that a retreat in the mountains is going to suddenly cure me of my afflictive emotions (blind passions) and automatically transform me into a Bodhisattva Mahasattva. This dharma door is precisely a path for people to wrap up their business here in the Saha world while still making Dharma progress and aspiring for something greater.

[Zhen Li]

Most translations that I have seen do not say "before the mealtime," but this is a very popular image in Mahayana texts, the Bodhisattva going from pureland to pureland.

The thing with great Bodhisattvas like Avalokitsevara and Mahasthamaprapta is, as I understand, that they are making the most of the fact that they are not yet Buddhas, and so manifesting in ways and guiding beings in ways that Buddhas don't, since their function is essentially preaching Dharma.

[LastLegend]

Yes, I have seen several modern Pureland books that speak of returning to the Pureland. I have wondered what is the origin of this
line of thinking? What is its doctrinal basis? Is it some kind of modern, popular, pseudo-buddhist version of "falling from the state of being in Paradise" ?

Not modern at all.
Has been talked about at least since Honen's time and also after Shantao.
Part of the official doctrine of Shin Buddhism (Genso Eko)
Like it or not, this Saha world is still Shakyamuni's Buddha Land and the sutra states explicitly travel to any other Buddha Land is possible.

In the 48 vows, Three Pureland sutras or in Buddhism generally, there is no basis for speaking of "returning to the Pureland" or of having of "fallen from the Pureland", which is kind of implied in certain modern books of Pureland Buddhism.

No falling involved, it's part of "continuing on the path of the Bodhisattva" as described in the Larger Sutra.

According to the 48 vows you will progress through the various levels of the bodhisattva development, if you attain birth in Sukhavati.
The 48 vows: http://www.en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amita ... eight_vows

Yes, and part of doing so is "making offerings at other Buddha Lands" (ie "practicing Dharma in other Buddha Lands"), of which this happens to be one.

I do not deny the vow 22. It makes an exception to the general principles that function in the Pureland. When the Longer Sutra describes making offerings to Buddhas in other realms, it says that the inhabitants of the Sukhavati will then return to Sukhavati before to the mealtime!
I don't think that rebirth to Sahaworld is intended by that statement of making offerings!
The 48 vows say that beings in Sukhavati can travel through teleportation. "Taking rebirth" would be clumsy and quite unnecessary, as a means of travelling to other worlds.


Chinese masters of the modern era, Ven. Hsuan Hua and Yogi C. M. Chen, never mention the idea of returning in their teachings about Sukhavati. I have read their teachings many times.
I have also heard teachings about the Sukhavati Pureland from teachers of different traditions many many times, beginning in 1970's, but mostly in 1980's and 1990's. Ole Nydal is the only one whom I have heard mention the concept of coming from the Pureland, (albeit in case of some people and not of everyone), (this was said in the summer of 1989).

Why can you not give up your attachment to a particular world and a particular country? People have merely built up a strong ego, a strong attachment, of belonging to a particular country, to a particular world. Because of this attachment they feel they are compelled to return to the place that they have identified themselves with so strongly. I am in favour of nonreturning.

Dharma means giving up one's self-identity, seeing that it is empty and impermanent.
What was your self-identity before this life? Before this historical era?
This means giving up the extreme of patriotism; because in other births you can belong to other countries, other cultures, and other realms of being.

Returning as an enlightened bodhisattva to guide sentient beings. It can be anywhere does not have to be here.

[Aemilius]

I do not deny the vow 22. It makes an exception to the general principles that function in the Pureland. When the Longer Sutra describes making offerings to Buddhas in other realms, it says that the inhabitants of the Sukhavati will then return to Sukhavati before to the mealtime!
I don't think that rebirth to Sahaworld is intended by that statement of making offerings!
The 48 vows say that beings in Sukhavati can travel through teleportation. "Taking rebirth" would be clumsy and quite unnecessary, as a means of travelling to other worlds.

Apparently you didn't read the sutra close enough and perhaps forgot that time passes differently in different realms.
"Before lunch time" in the Pure Land could be thousands of years.

“In addition, these Bodhisattvas, on their way to Buddhahood, will never again go down the evil life-journeys. They have command of transcendental powers and know the past lives of themselves and others. However, if they choose to be reborn elsewhere, in an evil world with the five turbidities, resembling my world, they will manifest themselves to resemble the inhabitants there.”

I have also heard teachings about the Sukhavati Pureland from teachers of different traditions many many times, beginning in 1970's, but mostly in 1980's and 1990's. Ole Nydal is the only one whom I have heard mention the concept of coming from the Pureland, (albeit in case of some people and not of everyone), (this was said in the summer of 1989).

Do you even read sutras? Or follow the traditions of the various schools? Avalokitesvara and Mahasthamaprapta are both Pure Land sages who've been known to manifest in this Saha world. Dalai Lama ring a bell? Monk Yin Guang (13th patriarch) was widely held to be a manifestation of Mahasthamaprapta in China, as Honen was in Japan.

Why can you not give up your attachment to a particular world and a particular country?

And yet you're the one criticizing Pure Landers for giving up this Saha world... curious... Wanting to learn from a Buddha directly his hardly hanging on to one's ego.

I had in mind the possibility that time passes differently in different realms, but as far as I remember it has been said about the realms of devas, and this appears even in the Sravakayana sutras.
I know there are manifestations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas also in Chinese & Japanese traditions.
What I am criticizing is the attitude of returning too eagerly, when most likely you are not yet a Mahasattva of the 8th, 9th or 10th ground or bhumi.

What is the hurry, as the sentient beings of the six realms will not disappear suddenly ? There will still be sentient beings to save, even if you would stay in a Pureland for 5000 years!
If you are not able to stay in the Purerealm for more than two weeks, I think it is more due to strong attachment than anything else.
You have to make up your mind, either you stay in the Sahaworld or then you stay in the Purerealm.

It was probably customary at the time of Nagarjuna to say that the foremost path is to practice bodhisattva deeds in the impure realms, before teaching anything about the Purerealms. I wanted to say this basic and traditional teaching concerning the Pureland.

with best wishes!

[Aemilius]

Most translations that I have seen do not say "before the mealtime," but this is a very popular image in Mahayana texts, the Bodhisattva going from pureland to pureland.

I have mostly read the Sukhavativyuha translations of Luis O. Gomez, (and the old one of Max Muller). It is curious if the before meal time sentence is not found in the other translations (?)
Luis O. Gomez has done thorough work, I believe. He has produced four translations of the Sukhavativyuha sutras, two from Chinese and two from Sanskrit.

[Astus]

一食之頃 - short time of one meal

23rd vow:

"If, when I attain buddhahood, bodhisattvas in my land who would make offerings to buddhas through my divine power should not be able to reach immeasurable and innumerable koṭis of nayutas of buddha lands in as short a time as it takes to eat a meal, may I not attain perfect enlightenment."
(Larger Sutra, tr. Inagaki, BDK ed. p 15)

設我得佛。國中菩薩。承佛神力供養諸佛。一食之頃不能遍至無量無數億那由他諸佛國者不取正覺。
(T12n0360_p0268b15-17)

"The Buddha said to Ānanda, “By the Buddha’s power, bodhisattvas of that land go to innumerable worlds of the ten directions, in as short a time as it takes to eat a meal, in order to pay homage and make offerings to the buddhas and World-honored Ones."
(p 37)

佛語阿難。彼國菩薩承佛威神。一食之頃往詣十方無量世界。恭敬供養諸佛世尊。
(273c04-05)

未食之前 - before meal

"After thus worshiping the buddhas, they quickly return home to the Pure Land before their meal."
(p 37)

供養佛已未食之前。忽然輕舉還其本國。
(273c14)

[Admin_PC]

What I am criticizing is the attitude of returning too eagerly, when most likely you are not yet a Mahasattva of the 8th, 9th or 10th ground or bhumi.

Good point. I think that the teachings regarding returning are trying to instill the inspiration for Bodhicitta, and once one got there, one would be guided by the teachers there. The Visualization Sutra talks about the different times required for the lotus flower to open, as well as different times to achieve the various spiritual levels (such as "no regress" and "Endurance in the Realization of the No Birth of Dharmas"). If we take the basic premise of sutras, those born there wouldn't have the freedom to be traveling around arbitrarily without any guidance, until they were ready.

[Serenity509]

I know that the historical Buddha taught reincarnation or rebirth, but are we required to believe in it as Pure Land Buddhists, since we believe that we will attain Buddhahood or be born in the Pure Land after we die, instead of being reincarnated into another human lifetime? Is literal belief in reincarnation or rebirth necessary to Pure Land Buddhism? If I could remember a past life, then my view on reincarnation would be different, but I honestly don't remember anything from my past lives. I personally believe in rebirth but it's just not that important to me.

[Serenity509]

Yes, I have seen several modern Pureland books that speak of returning to the Pureland. I have wondered what is the origin of this
line of thinking? What is its doctrinal basis?
Is it some kind of modern, popular, pseudo-buddhist version of "falling from the state of being in Paradise" ?

I haven't found anything like that in the older works of Pureland Budddhism, like ShanTao's Commentary on the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo Ching or in Dawn of the Chinese Pureland Buddhist Doctrine by Kenneth K. Tanaka, and others...

In the 48 vows, Three Pureland sutras or in Buddhism generally, there is no basis for speaking of "returning to the Pureland" or of having of "fallen from the Pureland", which is kind of implied in certain modern books of Pureland Buddhism.

According to the 48 vows you will progress through the various levels of the bodhisattva development, if you attain birth in Sukhavati.
The 48 vows: http://www.en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amita ... eight_vows

Shinran believed that Honen came from the Pure Land in order to teach the Pure Land Dharma, and then returned to the Pure Land after he died.

[sth9784]

I am not familiar with the idea of "falling" from the Pure Land. Using that word gives me the impression of comitting some transgression there, and then "falling" back into samsara. The idea of willingly leaving the Pure Land, and being born back into samsara, and then returning to the Pure Land upon death is grounded in the Larger Sutra. The two Bodhisattvas, and even Amida were, and are believed by some to have done so. In the last chapter of his Senchakushu where Master Honen describes the Commentary on the Meditation Sutra by Master Shan-tao as being as important as the actual Sutra, he goes on to state essentially that Master Shan-tao was an incarnation of Amida Buddha, and that the Commentary can be considered the work of Amida Buddha himself.

[Admin_PC]

I think Honen had said at one point that he'd been born in the Pure Land 3 times and that he'd been present at the initial teaching of one of the Pure Land sutras, but had been a clueless worldling at that point. I'm not sure whether this is something he said directly or an embellishment of a later biographer. The idea that Bodhisattvas (and even Amida himself) are a major part of the sutras - just remember the passages of Amida & a retinue coming to guide those on their deathbed. I think the Larger Sutra has a much more substantial passage talking about the travels of the bodhisattvas as well.

I do happen to think rebirth is a foundational point of doctrine that helps bring everything together (from the 4 noble truths, to the various levels of practitioners, to the idea of the bodhisattava path, and even the Pure Land itself). Things just don't fit together so well when you take it out. I don't really have any trouble accepting rebirth, but I don't really spend too much time worrying about it. I imagine the sheer act of a life ending is a pretty traumatic experience, and I'm not sure I'd want to revisit that. I wouldn't be that person anymore, the people I knew wouldn't be those people anymore either (even if they were still alive). I can't even go back to the person I was in kindergarten and the friends I had then are no longer the same people that I was familiar with then. At the same time, I'm not sure why folks have such a bugaboo about the idea of rebirth. Then again, I grew up a military brat and every few years I pretty much had to start from scratch and find new friends as I got adjusted to a new life (9 schools in 12 years).

[Serenity509]

I honestly don't have anything against the idea of reincarnation. It's just not something I usually think about. However, when I am in a hard time or when I'm getting impatient with a particular situation, sometimes I remind myself of the untold suffering I must have experienced in previous lifes, and it makes the present situation seem not so bad.

[Kaccāni]

Who would even care about eternity? As long as there is attachment to concepts of eternity, there is desire.

Best wishes
Kc

[antiquebuddhas]

In Buddhism there is Three marks of existence and one of them is Anicca or impermanence which stated nothing lasts forever. Even the universe including the Sentient beings and Buddha live in it will die then born again (which is proved by science with big bang and big crunch theory).

But in Pure Land buddhism, amithaba buddha stated (in vows no. 15):
"Provided I become a Buddha, the life of the beings in that country of mine should be eternal, excepting by their own free will whenever they choose to pass away from life, otherwise may I not attain the enlightenment."

So it means sentient beings who live in sukhavati/pure land is eternal and will lasts forever, this theory contradicts gautama buddha teachings. As we all know Gautama is the founder of Buddhism that we now know. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually you are not wrong.
what you say is correct, but the only difference is that your understanding.
The land that Amida Buddhamentioned is the place where no mortal can reach and if sentient beings who go to Pure land (not in mortal form) are eternal and will not go through the cycle of Life.