zamotcr wrote:1. Saha world is just a world system (like a galaxy) or Saha applies to our complete universe?
2. What is the difference between a Buddhaksetra and a Pure Land?
3. Are Pure Lands always a reward land, a Sambhogakaya land?
4. If Saha World is just a world system, there can be other world systems like our saha world, impure?
5. All impure Buddha Lands are physical, I mean, material worlds, like the same physical plane or dimension as us?
Astus wrote:1. Sahaloka (World of Endurance) signifies our universe (trichiliocosm) from hells to heavens.
2. The term "pure land" occurred first in Chinese language as an equivalent of "buddha land" and they are synonyms.
3. No, they can be both nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya.
4. There are many worlds, many universes.
5. Something physical is not automatically impure. Only the mind can be impure. And yes, from the very word "land" comes that buddha lands have an appearance perceptible by the five physical senses. In Buddhism only the highest heavens of the formless realm are without physical qualities.
zamotcr wrote:1. Each of this universes or trichiliocosm are limited in space right? It's like a big galaxy are they?
3. Thanks to previous discussions with you, I learned that Amitabha's PL is a Sambhogakaya realm, so other buddha-lands. Could you provide an example of a nirmanakaya pure land?
5. But isn't it true that for instance Amitabha's Pure Land is above highest heavens, outside samsara and triple realm? In which sense can the physical senses apply to Amitabha's Pure Land? Are beings there of physical matter, like us?
Astus wrote:3. The present buddha Shakyamuni is the example of nirmanakaya, so all the previous buddhas are also nirmanakaya, and where we live is their land. I don't know if there is a clear definition somewhere of what counts as nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya realm. In East Asia it was through the development of Pure Land teachings that Amitabha is now considered a sambhogakaya land, but in Tibetan Buddhism they differentiate between Amitabha as nirmanakaya and Amitayus as sambhogakaya. I'd say - and this is just speculation - that where all the six realms exist count as nirmanakaya and where only select people - noble ones - are present are sambhogakaya. Or another interpretation is possible, the appearance of nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya depends simply on the perceiver's level of enlightenment, since sambhogakaya is visible only to noble bodhisattvas.
5. Yes, in the East Asian system of 10 realms worlds of buddhas are separate from the six samsaric realms. However, in Buddhism "physical" (rupa) means simply the four elements that actually correspond to fundamental sense-perceptions of heat, solidity, movement and cohesion. When there is a visible object, it is rupa. When there is an auditory object, it is rupa, etc. It's not like assuming some essentially physical behind perception.
zamotcr wrote:3. I think another example for nirmanakaya pure land would be Maitreya's Pure Land in Tusita Heaven.
Astus wrote:The teaching of mind-only Pure Land supports the general Pure Land teachings. That is, people perceive based on their karma. Even if it is a buddha standing before one, only with the right karma - right mental seeds - can one realise it is a buddha. Although Shakyamuni lived in India, it didn't make the world pure and peaceful for everyone. Also, this world is generated by the karma of the beings living here, while the buddha-land of Amitabha is created by his vows.
I also heard of Shakyamuni Buddha that has its own Reward Land, which is called the Unexcelled Land, located west of our world, as stated in Nirvana Sutra. However, this Reward Land is for his own living, not for entertaining others like Sukhavati.
So, every Buddha before creating or living on his own Reward Land (Pure Land) born first in a "impure world" (like Shakyamuni) and create his Reward Land after that? I mean, why is it that Sukhavati and Saha,both Buddhalands, are so different?
One if Buddha creation, by merit, and this one (perhaps other lands are like us, created by karma) it is not. How are normally Pure Lands classified?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests