Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:46 pm
I think, when one dwells on whether Pure Land is a real place or whether it is a metaphor for a state of mind, one misses the point of the teaching, and it is a point which can only be expressed through the very descriptions which make such a realm seem impossible in the first place.
There is a level of understanding which rises above any conflict between rational and irrational, real and unreal, this shore and that shore, logical or illogical. This is a level of direct perception which does not follow the patterns which bind one to samsaric suffering. It is a way of direct perception found in the Zen Koan, the Tantric visualization, and also in the ShinJin of Pure Land Buddhism.
It makes perfect sense, with the usual understanding of things, to ask if the Pure Land is real. But when we say "real" what we are asking is, "is the Pure Land real the same way that my own world right here is real?" and this is where problems arise, because when we talk about this world being 'real' we are talking about a reality based on limited perceptions, based on a dualism of self and other, based on clinging and attachments, and the Dharma teaches us that all of these things are somewhat delusional perceptions to begin with, and that because of them we don't see what is really there, we only see what we want to see, and so what we end up experiencing are merely projections of our own minds.
If we are asking whether Amitabha's Pure Realm can be mapped by NASA, the answer is probably no, but this is not because it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in the same way. If this is hard to understand, then consider the fact that while a brain exists in space, thoughts only exist in time. So, even though thinking is connected with brain activity, if you cut open a brain, you will not see any thoughts or memories. So, just as the physical brain and thoughts exist in different ways, Amitabha's Pure Land exists, but not in a way that NASA can gather data on it.
In that context, if the question comes up, "isn't the Pure Land just another way of describing a state of mind?" you can't really argue that it isn't --any more than the place where you are right now, sitting at your computer, is also a state of mind. Likewise, if you ask, "is it a real place?" then you have to consider what it is about where you are right now that deserves the label "real".
When a Buddha establishes a Pure Realm, who, or what is reborn there? There is no permanent self. Buddhism does not maintain any idea of a permanent soul that floats to Buddha-heaven. There is merely a self-replicating, and slightly changing river of karmic events. It doesn't matter if your body is alive or dead. Once something is set into motion, it continues moving until what propels it ceases. Can you direct the flow of this karmic river? According to Pure Land Buddhism, this flow is directed towards infinity(Amitabha) when you recite "namo Amitabha" or "Namo Omitofo" or "Namu Amida Butsu" --whatever language you speak. That's all that is happening. Recitation of Amitabha's name points your karmic river in a certain direction and then Amitabha does the rest. It's like the gravitational pull of the Sun. That which is infinite absorbs that which is finite. You are drawn to awakened realization because awakened is the mind's ultimate condition.
Mahayana Buddhists say that the original nature of the mind is awake. It is Buddha. But this buddha mind is clouded by the habits of clinging. So, this practice points one directly to that, bypassing any intellectual effort. A lot of westerners are really turned off by this fact, because they see it like praying to Jesus, like childish faith. Actually, it is a profound letting go of the clinging. It's like a really stupid koan. But without all those crazy two headed birds and jewel trees, the method isn't there, because you really have to let go of clinging to your "reality" and just jump into that.
There is a level of understanding which rises above any conflict between rational and irrational, real and unreal, this shore and that shore, logical or illogical. This is a level of direct perception which does not follow the patterns which bind one to samsaric suffering. It is a way of direct perception found in the Zen Koan, the Tantric visualization, and also in the ShinJin of Pure Land Buddhism.
It makes perfect sense, with the usual understanding of things, to ask if the Pure Land is real. But when we say "real" what we are asking is, "is the Pure Land real the same way that my own world right here is real?" and this is where problems arise, because when we talk about this world being 'real' we are talking about a reality based on limited perceptions, based on a dualism of self and other, based on clinging and attachments, and the Dharma teaches us that all of these things are somewhat delusional perceptions to begin with, and that because of them we don't see what is really there, we only see what we want to see, and so what we end up experiencing are merely projections of our own minds.
If we are asking whether Amitabha's Pure Realm can be mapped by NASA, the answer is probably no, but this is not because it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in the same way. If this is hard to understand, then consider the fact that while a brain exists in space, thoughts only exist in time. So, even though thinking is connected with brain activity, if you cut open a brain, you will not see any thoughts or memories. So, just as the physical brain and thoughts exist in different ways, Amitabha's Pure Land exists, but not in a way that NASA can gather data on it.
In that context, if the question comes up, "isn't the Pure Land just another way of describing a state of mind?" you can't really argue that it isn't --any more than the place where you are right now, sitting at your computer, is also a state of mind. Likewise, if you ask, "is it a real place?" then you have to consider what it is about where you are right now that deserves the label "real".
When a Buddha establishes a Pure Realm, who, or what is reborn there? There is no permanent self. Buddhism does not maintain any idea of a permanent soul that floats to Buddha-heaven. There is merely a self-replicating, and slightly changing river of karmic events. It doesn't matter if your body is alive or dead. Once something is set into motion, it continues moving until what propels it ceases. Can you direct the flow of this karmic river? According to Pure Land Buddhism, this flow is directed towards infinity(Amitabha) when you recite "namo Amitabha" or "Namo Omitofo" or "Namu Amida Butsu" --whatever language you speak. That's all that is happening. Recitation of Amitabha's name points your karmic river in a certain direction and then Amitabha does the rest. It's like the gravitational pull of the Sun. That which is infinite absorbs that which is finite. You are drawn to awakened realization because awakened is the mind's ultimate condition.
Mahayana Buddhists say that the original nature of the mind is awake. It is Buddha. But this buddha mind is clouded by the habits of clinging. So, this practice points one directly to that, bypassing any intellectual effort. A lot of westerners are really turned off by this fact, because they see it like praying to Jesus, like childish faith. Actually, it is a profound letting go of the clinging. It's like a really stupid koan. But without all those crazy two headed birds and jewel trees, the method isn't there, because you really have to let go of clinging to your "reality" and just jump into that.