Pure lands....why?

[ronnewmexico]

Well that is very interesting and thanks for adding that...

Part of the quote.."Nevertheless, through the power of Buddha Amitabha's prayers, birth in the Sukhavati field has been vouchsafed by lord Amitabha himself, for which reason you must by all means strive at prayer for rebirth in Sukhavati! Without doubt, suspicion, laziness, or irresolution, and by means of certainty and with ardent exertion you must pray, while recollecting the array of the Sukhavati field and its qualities. Because even common, ordinary persons, who are burdened with the afflictions, may be born in Sukhavati, it is exceptional. And having been born there, all of your wishes will be realized just a soon as you conceive them, and you will not be tainted by the merest obscuration of affliction. Moreover, because you are permitted to journey to whichever among the buddha-fields you wish, it is exceptional; and it is exceptional because buddhahood is swifter that in the other fields. Because there is nowhere another field that is closer to being attained than Sukhavati, which is endowed with the aforementioned and other qualities beyond all conception, it is exceeding important that your strive in prayer for birth in Sukhavati.

I am certainly no expert on the literary, and perhaps there is a bit lost in translation but will give this a try.....

Firstly it is stated there is relatively litlle possibility of advancement to a Buddha field without the prerequisits of knowledge/attainment derived from conventional means of meditation or other spiritual practice.

The second part seems to infer the opposite.... but consider this...

The first line of the second part,(that quoted by me) states one may strive, but does not state one will attain. It states one may strive because...."Because even common, ordinary persons, who are burdened with the afflictions, may be born in Sukhavati," So it states why one may strive but does not in fact state the one who so strives is the one who attains. It states even common ordinary persons may be born there. No mention is made that this is the person striving through means described.

Then it states something puzzleing..... "all of your wishes will be realized just a soon as you conceive them, and you will not be tainted by the merest obscuration of affliction"
Now what wishes could one have in such a place. If a wish is to be suchly considered, was such wish not just realized..... if this is the person who is striving and praying for such a birth? If this is not the wish; and if there are wishes(other)....how can they be conceived? Would not the initiation of a wish or the conception of a wish, (one conceived).....not infer there is a conceptual origination of sorts in occurance. And as such could we not conclude that such person is in fact not enlightened as such conceptual designation can not occur for one of such quality as.....none could be realized, all is realized to be what it is. And such a field is not in itself devoid of such things and thusly serving as the basis of a sort for conceptual designation as in our present reality, able to be conceptually originated?

So from that we can infer that such person so described is not enlightened, and that such a place has qualities which may include a nonenlightened person doing what they do best...conceptually arrangeing things.

Then it proceeds to state..."and other qualities beyond all conception" This field posesses qualities beyond conception. But as infered by the preceeding comment it also apparently contains qualities that are conceptually originated, or may be by us.

And we must consider this.."Because there is nowhere another field that is closer to being attained".
The striver or prayer maker is not defined as being in such a place where they are closer to being attained..... but the field itself is so proclaimed.

So it appears one considered ordinary may birth there, but the maker of the prayer and aspiration is not necessarily the one who births there...no mention of that is made. Second...the field itself appears to be closer to being attained, but the individual to be attained of that no mention is made. And thirdly... it has inhabitants with characteristics of the unattained, those involved in the conceptual realm in which wishes may be made and realized.

And you will not be tainted by " the merest obscuration of affliction" So one may be untainted by affliction but by not the greatest but by the least(merest) obscuration. So assumedly the greater obscuration one will be tainted by.

And finally perhaps we must consider..."Moreover, because you are permitted to journey to whichever among the buddha-fields you wish, it is exceptional; and it is exceptional because buddhahood is swifter that in the other fields."

So perhaps the wish is so qualified.....And then why would one want to journey to any other buddha field if this particular one is.."swifter that in the other fields"
And what exactly is the meaning of swifter....not than but that?

It appears to my particular personal opinion that no mention is made that guarantees such a person making such prayers or such is guaranteed of anything as related to personal enlightenment. The place is particularly neat and all but it has availability for nonenlightened quality of conceptual basis(as does our realm) and has certain qualities which make it exceptional but the one who prays as in the first mention.....has no guarantee of anything.

The last statement is perhaps the intent and no other is implied....."it is exceeding important that your strive in prayer for birth in Sukhavati. "

It is very important for one who prays to strive for birth in Sukhavati....I agree....that would be so.
That is my conclusion. No conclusion of being better for the individual to be in is implied nor stated. If you suchly pray you should strive for this place, considering its qualities and such as mentioned in the first part of the quote, which would seemingly be how you would correctly strive or pray.

As a aside and totally irrelevent to the discussion the Chod in her days as the incipient, was to my envisioning totally differing from the Chod one may see in temple today. The virtual outcasts with strange hairs, strange clothes, appearing and at times acting insane, with no regard for anything other than the spiritual. Completely unordinary. I could see her making a statement such as this in that context and found to be not apparently as superficially thought upon introspection but much more significant and perhaps darker with intent.
Her particular dislike for dog skins I still don't quite get.
But a great master she was. Chariots she deemed would become some very important things in future times, a measure of worth....and they have..... called cars in todays lexion.

In any event regardless of my interpretations validity I enjoyed the opportunity to study it. A year or so could probably be spent with it to correctly interpret it to my opinion by one of greatest capacity. Not least capacity as is mine.

[Sherab]

For most of us, to traverse the path to enlightenment requires inevitably a fair amount of cushion time. Even though it is said that the human realm is the best place for Dharma practice, gathering the necessary conditions for that to happen could be a little tricky especially for those of us who have yet to begin traversing the Bodhisattva's grounds. So to guarantee for yourself suitable cushion time, Amitabha's pureland would be the best bet as the criteria for entering other purelands are really tough. Perhaps after having progress to a certain level in one's practice in Amitabha's pureland, one could return to the human realm to continue with one's practice.

[ronnewmexico]

Well

that last answer actually makes a lot of sense to me. That does provide a answer to pure lands.... why....

In that context I can agree it is a esteemable and worthy goal.

The other idea we can obtain a cheap easy way to enlighenment without personally developeing the qualities of understanding and self knowledge thorugh meditational means which certainly do include devotion and prayer, but other quality as well, (in large part because we are to busy)....I firmly reject that ascertation.

[Jikan]

I'd like to swing this around toward ron's question by corroborating some of what kirtu said much earlier in this thread: yes, Pure Land practice is practiced (in fact with great enthusiasm) in Tendai Buddhism, which is not strictly speaking a Pure Land school. It's also practiced in a particular way in many Ch'an/Zen schools, which leads me to a way through for ron.

Before practice comes view. What view do you bring to your practice? If you're a Zhentongpa, for instance, you bring the Zhentong view to bear on any practice you set out to do, yes? Similarly for Dzogchen, similarly for Tiantai, similarly for Hua Yen, similarly for Zen. What you practice when you practice phowa or nembutsu or any other particular Pure Land practice is in fact Buddhism when you keep your view through the practice.

The Obaku school in Japan is one well-documented case where Pure Land practice is presented wholly as a seamless extension of Zen practice, expressed through the Zen view. (I'd cite a Vajrayana text but I can't remember one at the moment.) You can read about it in the book _Obaku Zen_ by H. J. Baroni. It's easy to see in this instance how there's nothing exotic or extrinsic-to-practice about it here, even in the seemingly austere and to-the-bones context of Japanese Zen.

Who is Amida? Where is the Pure Land? Who is practicing what, and what goes where?

I hope this is useful to you, ron.

[ronnewmexico]

To qualify my question....I posted it here on the dharma free for all not because I have any existantially based angst in my personal practice but for the subject of discussion and debate. I am firmly grounded in my particular view and do not particualarly care if it is buddhist or not.

As I see pure land and powah refered to by a largly american auidence, I find i has characterixtics that are perhaps unreasonable. And this thread helps to enforce or oppose that view depending on sucess or nonsuccess of my points.

My overall view is that it is unreasonable to expect enlightenment without providing the cause or circumstacne of enlighenment or a being becoming attained. Devotion prayer and such have their function but as we see with ML's statement it is easy to read into things what is really not there. She in no manner can be found to be stateing one attains that status by doing only those things, but many interpret that in that way.

Tantra meditation, several other means and even sutric experience and understanding counsiously can provide such circumstance. Simple prayer and devotion without any of those things in isolation may provide such a place as a heaven or a visit perhaps to a pure land but a circumstance in which one may expect upon just that birth....full enlightenment during that birth...I suspect in one billion circumstances that is not going to happen but once. And with that once it is due to other contributiory factors in which faith and devotion are the only circumstances that are missing in a package of circumstance present with that individual that otherwise is complete for enlightenment to occur...basically a very rare personal circumstance.

So that is why I post....disagree or agree find my points valid or invalid...that's fine, it all is but debate.
That I need to personally find or have something revealed to me for my practice....you simply know nothing of my practice nor does anyone else here. This is why one consults with a lama or other spiritual director to find direction, not on a internet board. A lama who knows you may state...well you need to do this of find that, not on the basis of a discussion on a internet board if that is what is inferred.
And though I may have the littlest spiritual advancement of only the basest kind and no understanding of things at all, and may consider myself not Buddhist at all....I have learned what little I do know in large part from personal interaction and learning from real Lamas and Rinpoches in the Buddhist faith, always in temple or retreat house, not on internet board. As a contextual reference for clarrification, due to volunteer work, participation in ceremony, education and empowerment to ceremony, discussion group, prayer and retreat at retreat house, I would surmise I have spent more times in such places than 99 percent of the participants here who are not monastics. It is in such places if I have personal questions I find them answered, not here by some bojo on a internet board.

So this is a valid point for discussion and in the proper place for such discussion on this board, which is why it is tendered for discussion and debate not other. To qualify it otherwise if that is what is inferred is in error.

[Jikan]

Hi ron,

I'm glad you have a view and that your view may or may not have something to do with Buddhism. But that's entirely beside the point I was making (apropos of incorrect inferences...).

You claim that Pure Land practice interfaces badly to some extent in an American context. My claim is that this problem falls away when you *maintain a Buddhist view* through practice. (this is different from having a view, identifying a view, &c.) And I would argue that most if not all traditional Buddhist practices are like this. Prostrations make no sense in consumer capitalism, but if you take a Buddhist view that may or may not be your own view, then prostrations begin to make sense as practice.

I hope this clarification is helpful to you.

[ronnewmexico]

Well a part of this is semantical in a sense but some is not.

If one states I hope this clarification is helpful to you or your understanding of a issue that is helpful in a debate or discussion.
If one states I hope this (what I state) is helpful to you, flatly stated that infers in a personal sense. That is not helpful in a discussion or debate and fringes upon personalization of a argument or discussion which is a no no debate wise. It serves no purpose.

Prostrations can make sense, as can pure land make sense.

If we think we are going to obtain enlightenment solely by doing prostrations and not combining prostrations, even if in the act of prostrating itself, with a developeing understaning of things as they are...we will be doomed to failure, if enlightenment is our aim.
One can perhaps become enlightened in a instant, and obtain a realization by something as mundane as shoe repair but we must be repairing the shoe with the repairing involving consideration of all the other issues that are consequential to a understanding of how things are.

If we just repair shoes we may do such things for ever and ever and not attain a shred of enlightenment nor understanding of things.

Of course devotion and prayer are parts of a spiritual practice and not shoe repair but singularly without a consideration of context of such things and such performed in a meditational context they will not singularly provide a circumstance of enlightentment.
They cannot..... they do not provide significant enough cause.

One can pray and be devote in a manner in which self is virtually eliminated and through that means understand all and become enlightened. But it is not solely the prayer and devotion, it is the consequential destruction of self concept and that result which leads to the other.

So it may be important to know what we are doing in any event if we aim for enlightenment.
The question I pose is never.....does pure lands make sense as a spiritual practice,(I question no ones practice) the question is in the context of enlightenment. Can we reach enlightenment solely through that means without as is mentioned earlier in sutra quoted..without concentration focus and certain qualities developed, just by saying some words, being faithful and devoted and expecting to become enlightened.

I say firmely no. We may develope the qualities of concentration focus and other things, and certainly that may be through prayer and devotion. But it is prayer and devotion with result of those other qualities which enables the circumstance of enlightenment to precipitate. Not prayer and devotion singularly. As the sutra mentioned earlier qualifies.

Prayer and devotion, mantra prostrations tantra, mahamudra, Dogchen and other thngs.... all must be performed in a meditational context and all may provide a contributory cause for enlightenment. No one is siingularly better than another. Some may be quicker than another but quickness is perhaps not so important. To singularly perform any berift of a meditational context....will not provide the circumstance or effect of enlightenment. That is my basic contention for clarification. All provide benefit berift of that context and will help things along but will not provide that other thing.

Many americans seem to forget the meditational context, perhaps because of their theistic backround perhaps in intent to sell Buddhism...I really don't know. But they do....to busy..just do Powah, just pray, just do donation, just say a mantra....all good but not for what is aimed at.

[Astus]

Ron,

"Can we reach enlightenment solely through that means without as is mentioned earlier in sutra quoted..without concentration focus and certain qualities developed, just by saying some words, being faithful and devoted and expecting to become enlightened."

It is true, one doesn't become enlightened simply by repeating Amita Buddha's name and having faith in his vows. And it is not enlightenment that is the immediate consequence of that but birth in Sukhavati. Then it is in Sukhavati that one practices the paramitas etc. and attains enlightenment. This compared to going to the monastery. Before being within the monastery one wishes to go there and so requests his admissin. After obtaining access one can practice in better circumstances than in a lay life. Is this so difficult to comprehend?

[Aemilius]

It is also said that by gaining rebirth in Sukhavati you attain the stage of stream entry or the stage of nonreturning. It is said that faith in the pureland doctrine equals prajna, and therefore it is the cause for attaining the initial stages of enlightenment. According to the Meditation on Amitayus sutra there are different levels of rebirth in Sukhavati, and different time periods that you have to spend in isolation( which equals a probationatory retreat), depending on your faith and other factors. This time can be for example 500 years! which is quite a long retreat by normal human standards. On higher levels of rebirth the time is considerably shorter. In all there are nine levels of rebirth in Sukhavati.

Ron,

"Can we reach enlightenment solely through that means without as is mentioned earlier in sutra quoted..without concentration focus and certain qualities developed, just by saying some words, being faithful and devoted and expecting to become enlightened."

It is true, one doesn't become enlightened simply by repeating Amita Buddha's name and having faith in his vows. And it is not enlightenment that is the immediate consequence of that but birth in Sukhavati. Then it is in Sukhavati that one practices the paramitas etc. and attains enlightenment. This compared to going to the monastery. Before being within the monastery one wishes to go there and so requests his admissin. After obtaining access one can practice in better circumstances than in a lay life. Is this so difficult to comprehend?

[ronnewmexico]

Yes....500 years in a lotus leaf.

What is difficult to comprehend is why one cannot answer what has been asked, but simply prattle on as if enlightenment was a scheme of fees and payments to enter disneyland.

We do this and that and then....this occurs, we enter this fantastic place and eventually receive the ultimate gift...fulll enlightenment.

I again do not deny this as a valid path and will not repeat all I have stated, it is just too tedius, I have stated my point fairly clearly. The question remains why is it a preferred path. This ticket to enter disneyland depiction I don't see that as any valid spiritual path so described. A americanization it seems, a reading into things what may not be there. Something is there...it has not been yet described.

One sutra has been quoted and only one which seems to cotradict. Now apparently we may find others that state some semblence of what is stated(though I quite assume this semblence so far stated is a faulted one), but no mention is made of context nor to who each was spoken.

So debate or not......my ability or lack of ability to comprehend is not the issue of this debate but pure lands...why?

[Bodhi]

Yes....500 years in a lotus leaf.

What is difficult to comprehend is why one cannot answer what has been asked, but simply prattle on as if enlightenment was a scheme of fees and payments to enter disneyland.

We do this and that and then....this occurs, we enter this fantastic place and eventually receive the ultimate gift...fulll enlightenment.

I again do not deny this as a valid path and will not repeat all I have stated, it is just too tedius, I have stated my point fairly clearly. The question remains why is it a preferred path. This ticket to enter disneyland depiction I don't see that as any valid spiritual path so described. A americanization it seems, a reading into things what may not be there. Something is there...it has not been yet described.

One sutra has been quoted and only one which seems to cotradict. Now apparently we may find others that state some semblence of what is stated(though I quite assume this semblence so far stated is a faulted one), but no mention is made of context nor to who each was spoken.

So debate or not......my ability or lack of ability to comprehend is not the issue of this debate but pure lands...why?

500 years is extremely short comparing to human beings making mistakes to fall onto the 3 evil paths and suffering in samsara for infinitely long time.

Your question had been answered many times but it is you who didn't accept it, so it is only in your mind that it isn't answer.
Why do you hold onto such view? Why do you care what other choose for their cultivation? Why do you choose the path you do? Why do you hold onto your ego? Who is holding onto these views that you believe are true?
These are the questions you should ask yourself and reflect upon and it doesn't matter what other choose for their cultivation.

The Pure Land path had been taught and encouraged by many ancient masters and patriarchs that had study both in Chan School and Pure Land School. Each school in a way have its own belief and it is for different people of different capacity.

And referring back to your first topic post. Many of us had made it clear that Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha is not the final place, nor do we have to be enlightened to be born there, even though it is possible for enlightened people to take rebirth in Pure Land because even an enlightened person needs to maintain their cultivation. It is a Buddha Land that give a more perfect condition for the beings of that land to attain enlightenment quickly without distraction and regression. Human is the only realm that give the right condition to enlightenment in Saha world, but this is not the case in Pure Land because it is not Saha world. It is definitely not a final place because to attain full enlightenment of a Buddha, one must cultivates and go through infinite amount of lives, this also consist of the Bodhisattva path and the perfecting of the paramitas, and I will make it clear, they do not practice Bodhisattva path in Pure Land. To sum it up, it is for beings who wish to attain enlightenment quickly and continue their cultivation without regression or fear of falling onto the 3 evil paths.

I think it would help if you would willingly find books and lectures by ancient or present masters, it will definitely answer your questions, but in the end it is up to you to accept it or not.

I think it is more important that you concentrate on the path of cultivation you choose that you are comfortable with and let others choose their own cultivation instead of asking this tedious and pointless question that had already been answered. You have your own reason and argument or even belief, and they have theirs.

Let go of your thoughts and views because none of it is your true intrinsic mind, all emptiness.

Peace In Chan

[Jikan]

This has been a really interesting conversation. Here are some reflections on the issues raised in it, some of which relate to points ron has made and questions he has raised. (the piece is not directed toward ron personally but to my students here in DC, who are thinking about the same questions)

http://dctendai.blogspot.com/2010/08/wh ... hings.html

[ronnewmexico]

You're joking right??

"I think it is more important that you concentrate on the path of cultivation you choose that you are comfortable with and let others choose their own cultivation instead of asking this tedious and pointless "

This is a internet board. This is posted in dharma free for all .

Your personal judgement of me is irrelevent to this discussion and discussion and debate it has been.
YOu don't like it or me or the subject matterr...don't participate. That's all. I don't give a flying capital F on what you think of me nor my ego nor my way of responding to the discussion. You want to win point furthur discussion or advance opinion....present such present argument with support on how and why your position is sustainable.. don't malign the opponant in opinion.
It serves no purpose.

You are simply in no positon to judge me nor my ego nor any number of other things such as my practice and how I should proceed with my practice. A teacher I personally interact with as mentor may be entitled to do such things, not some bojo on a internet board. The idea I may be sensitive to such appraisement is laughable, as I am not a thirteen year old unfounded in such things, perhaps, but one with quite a bit of years and expereince of all sort(though I claim not a shred of attainment).

Check out the rules on dharma free for all and its intention....this is exactly the proper place for this discussion.
Such placed on a pureland oriented board or some related place where people of that faith may congregate to discuss their faith would be rude inappropriate and combative. But this thread is not there....but here....in dharma free for all

Posts such as JIkan's are, with related content, certainly appropriate for consideration in this matter if not personalized, which it is not, (though I find that particular link not very informative). Personalization of any discussion or debate, looses consideration of any issue you may validly hold in that debate.The baby is thrown out with the bathwater most often.

My personal observation is that those not able to protect or advance points and react quite emotionally at times are most usually....not well founded in that point or belief. Since the personal has been introduced that is my personal observation of how things go in discussion. I make no comment upon any opponants in opinion..... spiritual beliefs, ego, practice, or any of those things as that would serve no purpose to sustance or advancement of my position. But that as they say...is just me.

Lets see some meat in this discussion...not this nonsense.
With only a very few exceptions so far its all....blah blah blah, and not much more.

I expect more from those whose religion is centered upon testing all that may be said to find if it may be gold or fools gold, and all that is said must be found to be well said..... through use of the rational.

To elaborate a bit....if someone questions a belief or foundational philosophy of mine....I expect to field any number of quaries and response to quaries in debate to support my opinion.
I do not expect to post sutra or magazine discussion related to the issue but which may oppose the issue or my view, as sole source. And I do not expect I would link or provide link which was originated in others perhaps opinion of that issue, as I would not if engaged in a debate upon the Iraq war, state Glen Greenwalds opinion on that issue as fact but instead state my rational and facts and perhaps use Glen G's as substantiation or contribution. I would not ever question anothers motive or ego standing or practice as that is not relevent in any fashion. And i would not quote links that are addressed at students.

No my enviisoning of such a thing is unequivocal...wham bam thank you maam.The relevant sutras, and/or suttas. How they support my view, The relevent authorities statements in my religion, how they support my view. My view, why and how I hold that view. and on and on...

Wham bam thank you maam....no question nor doubt. If opposition is firstly fielded a similiar unequivocally drawn conclusion, which can prove only one thing....only one logical assumption in this thing is possible...mine, my view.

What I have seen so far, and no personal slight is intended(this refers only to this discussion) is ...

Namby pamby, a namby pamby response, when it should be wham bam thank you maam. KIck ass and take names. I may or may not personally hold that view on pure lands....if I was attempting to support that view...I would certainly not do it in this fashion.
Such a argument would indeed to me..smell like whine not cheese.

[Aemilius]

I thought of starting a "Send Ron to the Pureland!" poll, then Amitabha told me that he can be put into a place of confinement here on earth.

[Sherab]

The other idea we can obtain a cheap easy way to enlighenment without personally developeing the qualities of understanding and self knowledge thorugh meditational means which certainly do include devotion and prayer, but other quality as well, (in large part because we are to busy)....I firmly reject that ascertation.

I would not dismiss devotion and prayer being an effective path out of hand entirely. I take devotion to mean complete trust in the Buddha/guru as a being who have crossed over the ocean of samsara and complete trust in the Buddha/guru's ability and unconditional willingness in leading you across.

What does this complete trust (devotion) do? It opens up your mind to the mind of the Buddha/guru. For example, if you have a broken bone, you would allow a doctor to fix your broken arm because you trust he could fix it. Similarly, if you have a "broken" mind, by having complete trust in the Buddha/guru, you effectively allow the mind of the Buddha/guru to enter your mind to fix it. As an aside, this is what I think is meant by receiving blessings. There is an entry into your mind by the Buddha/guru and a change made in your mind as a result, regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

Prayer is a form of expression of trust (devotion). If there is no such trust, the prayer would be pointless.

[ronnewmexico]

S

you are mistating my point. YOur point to my view is entirely valid, but mistates in this.."certainly do include devotion and prayer," which I state and you quote.
That is a straw man argument, one of many arguments in debate which do not serve any purpose to advance or secure point.

So I in fact do agree with your point...my contention as elaborated is that simply prayer and devotion absent of the other qualities of a path to enlightenement which include focus concentration and other things(as mentioned in that particular sutra mentioned) are necessary.

Very rare is the individual to my opinion who already has all the prerequisits composits and lacks only faith prayer and devotion to complete the path. I would not deny it can happen but is very rare. And through faith and devotion prayer and such one can develope the other qualities necessary on the path. However the necessity to develope these other qualities speaks of the lacking in themselves in isolation faith prayer and devotion of being able to provide those things automatically. They may lead to the other, not provide the other by themselves..... or else all faithful devoted theists who pray a lot would be on the road quite assuredly without any other notion to enlightenment...we know that is not the fact.The object of the veneration faith and devotion to the prayer of such would have no, absolutely no distinction, as in this consideration a buddha would equal a christ who would equal a Mohommad who would equal a sun god and on and on...the prayer devotion and faith being the key means nothing else of real importance....names to this way of thinking that could be readily equally exchanged.

That final notion, contradicts very many of buddhist core concepts of absolutism and nihilism being inadequate and faulted, referenced by many buddhist teachers in a historical context and the Buddha himself who firmly rejected the absolutist means of Brahamin fire ceremony as being a reasonable path.

So I remain with point....why pure lands?
Again so far has not been provided a rational to provide the american way of looking at this thing as the right way of looking at this thing.
A sop to theists in america who cannot change their absolutist way of looking at things perhaps but still want to be called buddhist...so this thing is thrown their way. That is how it seems.

I again am not deny it can be another way and a valid path as described...this way...no way.

As a aside I do thank you Sherab with providing a response that though faulted was at least above petty name calling, condensation, ego assertations and such nonsense which have characterized many prior posts on this issue. It is a good valid point..but we already agree on that issue,(pure land is a valid spiritual path) so in does not advance nor protect or support any other point. So we are progressing a bit...from adhominum to perhaps straw man.

[Chaz]

I thought of starting a "Send Ron to the Pureland!" poll, then Amitabha told me that he can be put into a place of confinement here on earth.

[ronnewmexico]

No more comments about where I should go then and how I should practice, as in your prior post on this thread...."You've been bringing up Thrangu Rinpoche. If you're actually in New Mexico, you missed a golden opportunity - Rinpoche teaches each summer in Crestone, CO - only a few hours from Albequerque. This year's retreat was just a few weeks ago. A shame to be sure. Getting close with the possibility of an interview with a teacher of Rinpoche's stature is rare and you missed it. You may have been able to actually question Rinpoche directly on the subject of Pure Land. Oh well, there's always next year."

Democratic principle as in a majority opinion of peoples does not determine success in debate or discussion. Most commonly a absolute success is found when your opponant/s is put in a position of the absurd from which he/she cannot return. The logical premesis they contend is found generally by extension, totally absurd. Complete success is however not usually common.

The opponant may continue but it becomes clear to all but him/her, that the position being defended is quite lost by logical extension proving absurdity.

So far in this discussion the prayer and devotion mentioned here, has been shown to be equilivent to the theists prayer and devotion.....with no clarification nor qualification.
AS such as stands buddhism if employed solely in this manner, with only prayer and devotion and no add ons of perhaps concentration, understandings, meditational means or other spiritual means...suffices as any other theist religon with only the names changed.

So as we all know buddhism is not theism and thusly the position of only prayer and devotion being necessary singularly, to attain enlightenment through pure lands is shown to be one of equalizing of theism and buddhism and thusly is found ....quite absurd.

It may not be suchly absurd, but so far nothing states otherwise. So pure land for those that hold that view of only prayer and devotion being necessary...is so far shown absurd and defeated.
There are many means to win a debate or discussion but that is most common.

Here is a clue...if you want to defeat my premesis, you must address my premesis. Talking about me being in a prison or some such, my ego, my practice or whatever, allows me to extend my point maintain my point and furthur elaborate, without counter... which is to the oppositions detriment.

This is why these things are not done in debate or serious discussion. You loose, you loose point fail to secure or maintain point your position lacking response is able to be shown absurd and thusly you...

Loose. Your opponant takes advantage of such noncounters to elaborate and firm the position until it is basically unassailable.

My points may or may not be valid...it is a shame however to win such things in such fashion as this discussion as due to no experience and only internet or media experience of debate or discussion.....no one knows how to conduct themselves in such a arena. So it is like taking candy from a baby.

Yes certainly continue in this fashion, talk about such things as prision, my ego my practice which allows me to furthur elaborate on my position, since no position i hold is countered.. feel free continue....

Some buddhist schools make much of religious debate and discussion in fact training extensively in such matters....I think that may be a very good thing for those schools to do, as a aside comment.

Here is another clue....if you want to defeat or attack my premesis you must not just quote my premesis and then state I am wrong and you are right..you must show how my points/statements are illogical or make no sense. Then so challenged you may advance to propose your own view on this thing, and await my counter. I may counter and you may counter in response....that is generally how this thing is done. Eventually enough information is presented to clearly identify where each stands and the positives and negatives to each side. The winning or looseing may then be a determination of which side holds the most position of merit.
So sans absurdity a arguement may evolve in that fashion and be productive.

REally no one is hurt if you just want to leave this thing alone and not respond. If you know nothing about these things of discussion and debate. People tend to think certain things such as being able to debate, developement of political view, economic view are things just grown from the ground when one reaches a certain age.....this is not so. All must be studied to develope those things. That however is a american view on those things....you reach a certain age and you suddenly know enough to be able to profess such. That conception is absolutely false...as the pathetic attempts at discussion here display.

So if you want to discuss without just seeming silly...take my clues. I may be totally wrong, but so far the response do not show that....not a whit. Attack my position/s...not me. With logical determined position, not just you are wrong and I am right nor so in so says this or that. Real logic and substantiation of such. Quote the relevent sutras suttas, quote the leaders of their faiths and their interpretations of such supporting your view....do those things...you may win, or at least present a thing from which a person may make determination of merit....

not this drivel.

Or let it stand. As it stands now the oppositions position, has been shown absurd,(abeit with no real defense of positon), remains absurd and is thusly defeated.

[Bodhi]

The other idea we can obtain a cheap easy way to enlighenment without personally developeing the qualities of understanding and self knowledge thorugh meditational means which certainly do include devotion and prayer, but other quality as well, (in large part because we are to busy)....I firmly reject that ascertation.

I would not dismiss devotion and prayer being an effective path out of hand entirely. I take devotion to mean complete trust in the Buddha/guru as a being who have crossed over the ocean of samsara and complete trust in the Buddha/guru's ability and unconditional willingness in leading you across.

What does this complete trust (devotion) do? It opens up your mind to the mind of the Buddha/guru. For example, if you have a broken bone, you would allow a doctor to fix your broken arm because you trust he could fix it. Similarly, if you have a "broken" mind, by having complete trust in the Buddha/guru, you effectively allow the mind of the Buddha/guru to enter your mind to fix it. As an aside, this is what I think is meant by receiving blessings. There is an entry into your mind by the Buddha/guru and a change made in your mind as a result, regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

Prayer is a form of expression of trust (devotion). If there is no such trust, the prayer would be pointless.

Very nice! A very good example of benefits in faith and devotion!

[ronnewmexico]

There is no point in restateing what has just been stated(geeze louise)..

so here is the response to that...."you are mistating my point. YOur point to my view is entirely valid, but mistates in this.."certainly do include devotion and prayer," which I state and you quote.
That is a straw man argument, one of many arguments in debate which do not serve any purpose to advance or secure point.

So I in fact do agree with your point...my contention as elaborated is that simply prayer and devotion absent of the other qualities of a path to enlightenement which include focus concentration and other things(as mentioned in that particular sutra mentioned) are necessary."no one is stateing faith devotion and prayer do not have a spiritual purpose. The question posed is will they in entireity singularly, without other factor combined, such as understanding, concentration, focus perhaps other spiritual quality, allow one to attain enlightenment.

Which I state firmly no. That stated, the question then becomes(in part) why put the barrier between trying to attain those varying attributes and just performing faith and devotion and aiming for pureland birth. Both at the same time would seem preferable, as one cannot generally discount those things and advance spiritually without generating a closed shell response to reality and thusly having negative karmic effect precipitate.

The theists with their great great faith devotion and prayer are no good example on how to conduct oneself in even a solely conventional sense. Such a approach of only those things would seem to closely approximate such a thing, and like as not; then result in their negative caused circumstance.

As in yes.....we pray a lot but really do anything....well no not really. Or even to do such in the rare event such is combined with action altruistic action, as in Mother Theresa...did she attain enlightenment? Is she thought by these american purelandians to have attained enlightenment and will return to benefit others....is that what is thought?

Well such would assuredly conflict with the Buddhas and others who expound his view's statements on absolutism and nihilism not being able to provide such a path.

And Mother Theresa great bodhistava she was, was nevertheless quite dumb. In response to the question on abortion she stated...send them all to me(as opposed to the killing). Many millions would then by some miracle I'd suppose be taken care of by her each year....no I don't expect that would happen.

So is this what we should aim for by example....to be quite dumb, as perhaps the responses indicate?
Should we then erect a monument to our dumbness, praise all sorts of dumbness and then in our dumbness.....mistakeingly call it pure land? Is that what we should do? Perhaps with Mother Theresa as head dumb person we could sit on the right hand side of and learn....quite dumb things? Eventually perhaps attaining the paramount of dumbness, make very many copies of our dumbness and spread them throughout the universe....propogating our dumbness? Is this what we should do?

But I digress...no one is stateing faith devotion and prayer do have necessary spiritual purpose...that has been stated repeatedly, just read the posts(geeze louise).