Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Nighthawk » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:06 am

PorkChop wrote:
With all the prohibitions & warnings about disparaging the Mahayana sutras, you would think that would be the logical course of action, wouldn't you?

Nothing wrong with being a Theravada monk. Indrajala should reconsider Mahayana. His attack against PL is nothing new.
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby PorkChop » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:21 am

daverupa wrote:
PorkChop wrote:Take the short Amitabha Sutra for example, in it you'll find the 37 limbs of enlightenment


So, I'm to understand that the texts which clearly describe the various components of the 37 Limbs and which are attributed to the historical Buddha can be found elsewise, thus:

"In addition, Sariputra, in that land are various kinds of unusual, wonderful birds of diverse colors, such as white cranes, peacocks, parrots, saris, kalavinkas, and jivajivas. Day and night in the six periods, these birds sing in harmonious, exquisite tones. These tones pronounce Dharmas, such as the Five Roots, the Five Powers, the Seven Bodhi Factors, and the Eightfold Right Path. Sentient beings that hear these tones all think of the Buddha, think of the Dharma, and think of the Sangha. Sariputra, do not say that these birds are born as a form of requital for sins [in their past lives]. Why not? Because, Sariputra, that Buddha Land does not have the three evil life-paths. Sariputra, even the names of the three evil life-paths do not exist in that Buddha Land, much less the actual paths. These birds are all magically manifested by Amitabha Buddha to have the Dharma tones flow everywhere."


I suppose the five roots germinating bodhi seeds might seem beautiful, but it isn't how the 37 Limbs are developed and perfected according to the sources attributed to the historical Buddha. The Eightfold Path covers the whole Path, in fact, so I wonder why this is given only a passing mention, for example, instead of being expanded on and described in detail, as the Buddha was wont to do.

The dismissive tone is of your making, friend. I am simply confused about the claims that Pure Land provenance can be connected to the historical Buddha.

I assure you, I have done my readings, and disparage no text, no effort to awaken.


I don't appreciate the multiple (3) posts (in an hour), the way you phrased both your initial question, or the way you phrased the follow up. You could've just asked politely. The comments "So... um, where are the 37 limbs, in that sutra?" and "So, setting that aside, and using the .pdf from earlier, I am as yet unable to find something that we can recognize as among the 37 Limbs." were completely unnecessary if you'd even bothered to read such a small sutra - not when 25 of them were listed outright in that small quote - which is easy enough to find on the second page of the sutra.

No, the sutra doesn't define the Roots, the Powers, the Bodhi Factors, or the Path as clearly or as repetitively as some of the Agamas/Nikayas. Yes, the Mahayana doesn't work so well without supplementary commentary or the Agamas/Nikayas - but the same is true for many Pali Suttas which rely on interpretation or reference to other ideas. I said it's connected (traces) to Dhamma teachings of the historical Buddha (you explicitly said it is not Buddhadhamma). Quit twisting what I said to suit your argument... Did the historical Buddha not teach any of these 37 limbs?
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Dodatsu » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:23 am

People dismissing the Pure Land teachings or even the whole of Mahayana just because it's not found in the early texts is nothing new, however, it won't make much of a difference to those of us in the Pure Land Path because even though there have been many scholars who say so, the Pure Land teaching is still one of the most, if not the, most popular school of Mahayana Buddhism. The message is simple and easy for even the illiterate to understand and practice. Scholars for and against Pure Land can argue all they want on whether it links up to Sakyamuni Buddha or not but that is just secondary, it won't lead them from the liberation of samsara.

And by the way, "provenance" wasn't really a big deal until the advent of modern scholarship, or at least until it was started by buddhalogists who somehow wanted to mimic Christian theologians in Europe or elsewhere.

My earlier posts on scholarship were not meant to be "scare" quotes, i'm just highlighting that the Japanese and Chinese Pure Land Masters would not have made it a condition for one to be born in the Pure Land, which ultimately (from a Shin Buddhism POV) leads to full Enlightenment. Scholarship can help one to understand the fine details of the Dharma, and from the writings of the Masters we can see how learned they were, BUT scholarship itself will not enable one to be liberated from the bonds of samsara. We can argue on and on on the provenance of the Pure Land teachings and it will just go around in circles, because there are people dead-set that it's not considered Buddhadharma and there are people who practice it as Buddhadharma.

:anjali:
Last edited by Dodatsu on Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Contemplating the power of Tathagata's Primal Vow,
One sees that no foolish being who encounters it passes by in vain.
When a person single-heartedly practices the saying of the Name alone,
It brings quickly to fullness and perfection [in that person] the great treasure ocean of true and real virtues.
- Shinran Shonin
User avatar
Dodatsu
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby rory » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:30 am

To Rev. Dodatsu:

Jokei was a hardline Vinaya guy who was pushing his own Pure Land practice (Potala) and came from the rivals of the Tendai, the Hosso. Of course he wasn't going to mesh with Honen, who came from a Tendai background and was teaching fishermen and prostitutes. Book's worth a look, but I'm not convinced of an absence of sectarian bias on the part of Jokei.



Jokei, of course, was the one who submitted the "Kofukuji Peitition", which indirectly resulted in Honen and Shinran's exile.


I'm reading a scholarly study of that period that revolves around Jokei, its written by a scholar not someone with an affiliated with a sectarian university like in Japan. The point the author (not Jokei) was making is that normative Mahayana at the period revolved around a multiplicity of practices.

Did you know that Jokei engaged in a variety of practices, many devotional? Here and I quote from "Jokei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan"

"Jokei's life of devotion an propagation was notable in the eclectic range of both sacred figures and practices he endorsed. It provides a stark contrast to the singual emphasis of his more well-known contemporary Hoenen, and even more Shinran and Nichiren who followed. Sakyamuni, Maitreya, Kannon, Jizo , and Kasuga among othere were all focal points of his devotion.....Included among his religious practices were mind-only contemplation (yuishiki sanmai[i][/i], recitation of various nenbutsu[i], and sacred dharani, worship of Buddha-relics (busshari[i], precept adherence (kairitsu[i][/i], fund-raising (kanjin[i]) campaigns, temple construction, and various ritual performances and lectures..........
p.71
and:
"....I contend that underlying his [Jokei] competitive rhetoric is a fundamental concern with the direction Amida devotion had taken, ultimately manifest in the teachings of Honen - namely, that the excessive emphasis on the absolute power of Amida's vow to overcome all karmic consequences was fundamentally flawed according to traditional Mahayana doctrine.." p.113
"

And here is a review by Ryuichi Abe of this book:

"Finally, we have a thorough study in English on this extremely important religious figure from medieval Japan. Ford's insightful work provides us with a totally new grounding to understand Jokei's life and thought. It also illustrates, from Jokei's unique perspective, the intricate relationship between the court and the Buddhist order, the celebrated rivalry between the 'Old Buddhism' and 'New Buddhism,' the influence of Esoteric Buddhism on new doctrinal developments, and other major traits of Buddhism in the most tumultuous period in Japanese religious history. With its lucid narrative and incisive analysis, James Ford's work is a gem that illumines amidst the ongoing process of revising our knowledge of Japanese Buddhism." -- Ryuichi Abé, author of The Weaving of Mantra: Kukai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse & Prof of Japanese Religions, Harvard University.

gassho
Rory

ps. if you wish to understand Genshin and Tendai practices and history I suggest you ask Jikan, Jikai etc the many resident Tendai priests here.
Dharani of Amoghapasa Avalokitesvara:

Om amogha-padma-pasa-krodhakarsaya praveshaya maha-pashupati-yama-varuna-kuvera
brahma-vesa-dhara padma-kula-samayan hum hum

heart mantra: Om amogha vijaya hum phat
User avatar
rory
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Dodatsu » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:48 am

This part of the quote
Jokei was a hardline Vinaya guy who was pushing his own Pure Land practice (Potala) and came from the rivals of the Tendai, the Hosso. Of course he wasn't going to mesh with Honen, who came from a Tendai background and was teaching fishermen and prostitutes. Book's worth a look, but I'm not convinced of an absence of sectarian bias on the part of Jokei.
is not my quote, i think it was Nighthawk's or Porkchop's response to your thread. The second part
Jokei, of course, was the one who submitted the "Kofukuji Peitition", which indirectly resulted in Honen and Shinran's exile.
was mine.

Jokei and Honen (and Shinran) had different understandings and interpretations. Jokei, being from Hosso which together with Tendai was one of the mainstream Buddhist schools in Japan of that time, may have felt threatened or even alienated from Honen's new radical teachings, that is, the exclusive practice of the Nembutsu. But Honen's teachings more or less, directly or indirectly, lead to the establishment of the New Buddhist schools of Kamakura. This is already another discussion so I'll just leave it here.
Contemplating the power of Tathagata's Primal Vow,
One sees that no foolish being who encounters it passes by in vain.
When a person single-heartedly practices the saying of the Name alone,
It brings quickly to fullness and perfection [in that person] the great treasure ocean of true and real virtues.
- Shinran Shonin
User avatar
Dodatsu
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby daverupa » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:55 am

Dodatsu wrote:And by the way, "provenance" wasn't really a big deal until...


...the thread was split, whereby it became the OP.

Dodatsu wrote:People dismissing...


This hasn't happened here.

PorkChop wrote:I don't appreciate...


I apologize for these mannerisms; internet communication can be really troublesome.

PorkChop wrote:No, the sutra doesn't define the Roots, the Powers, the Bodhi Factors, or the Path as clearly or as repetitively as some of the Agamas/Nikayas. Yes, the Mahayana doesn't work so well without supplementary commentary or the Agamas/Nikayas - but the same is true for many Pali Suttas which rely on interpretation or reference to other ideas.


Yes, the context of a whole Nikaya or Agama seems to be a component of how any other given text therein is meant to be handled.

PorkChop wrote:I said it's connected (traces) to Dhamma teachings of the historical Buddha (you explicitly said it is not Buddhadhamma).


I have done no such thing.

I said I was a student of the Buddhadhamma of the historical Buddha, and this is demonstrably different than the skillful couching of this Buddhadhamma within a Pure Land context, as we can find in the texts and commentaries you've provided.

To put it another way: these texts make reference to the 37 limbs which the Buddha did teach, as we know from the Nikayas/Agamas, so it is indeed the Buddhadhamma of the historical Buddha if we are enjoined to practice these things. If we are enjoined to engage other practices alongside that effort, as supports and aids, then this, too, may be the teaching of the Buddha in terms of its usefulness in supporting us on the Path.

Ancient and modern teachers have all done this sort of thing.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Dodatsu » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:04 am

daverupa wrote:
Dodatsu wrote:And by the way, "provenance" wasn't really a big deal until...


...the thread was split, whereby it became the OP.

Dodatsu wrote:People dismissing...


This hasn't happened here.


And obviously you didn't read my posts well. I didn't say it was here on this thread and forum, i'm saying from even from more than a century ago, and even during Shandao's, Honen's and Shinran's time there were already people dismissing the Pure Land teachings. And if you bother reading my post, "provenance" was not really a big deal until buddhalogists in the late 19th, early 20th century made it so.
Contemplating the power of Tathagata's Primal Vow,
One sees that no foolish being who encounters it passes by in vain.
When a person single-heartedly practices the saying of the Name alone,
It brings quickly to fullness and perfection [in that person] the great treasure ocean of true and real virtues.
- Shinran Shonin
User avatar
Dodatsu
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby PorkChop » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:33 am

rory wrote:"Jokei's life of devotion an propagation was notable in the eclectic range of both sacred figures and practices he endorsed. It provides a stark contrast to the singual emphasis of his more well-known contemporary Hoenen, and even more Shinran and Nichiren who followed. Sakyamuni, Maitreya, Kannon, Jizo , and Kasuga among othere were all focal points of his devotion.....Included among his religious practices were mind-only contemplation (yuishiki sanmai[i][/i], recitation of various nenbutsu[i], and sacred dharani, worship of Buddha-relics (busshari[i], precept adherence (kairitsu[i][/i], fund-raising (kanjin[i]) campaigns, temple construction, and various ritual performances and lectures..........


Yes, and Kasuga isn't even Buddhist...

As a guy with a martial arts background, I have to tell you, I've lived most of my life by the idea of:
"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
-Bruce Lee

So this idea that a singular practice is somehow deficient, somehow a detriment goes so far against everything I know from my own personal experience, I have a very hard time taking this criticism seriously. I've seen & felt first hand what a guy can do with a single kick trained hour after hour, day after day, year after year, versus someone who tries to maintain a vast library of techniques. I think that's why so many of the battlefield samurai gravitated to Honen.

I have no reason to believe that mind training is all that different from physical training - it's all about intensity & consistency. When householder Mahanama asked the Buddha for a mind training in AN 11.12 (A v 328) of the Pali canon, the Buddha gave him the simple recollection of the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, Devas. This isn't too different from Pure Land practice. Of course, this only applies to contemplation and concentration.

When it comes to ethics, as was said earlier, Honen made exceptions for certain followers, and in no way endorsed behavior against society's norms.
Furthermore, Honen actively encouraged following precepts, and so there are still Bodhisattva vows & precepts in the Jodo Shu tradition today.
Shinran was more about looking at our deep dark motivations, right in the face, unflinchingly, and realizing that we can not will them to change.
Masking these poison-ridden motivations by artificially following precepts would only make them hide until they came roaring out another day.
Only by accepting their defiled nature, and resting in the mercy of universal compassion & acceptance, can our hearts begin to change.

As far as merit making, both Honen and Shinran spread the Dharma to folks who didn't know it, there are very few more meritorious acts one can do.
Bodhidharma would've agreed as much - he apparently didn't think too much of such acts of merit making as building monuments & temples.

As far as lectures, Honen & Shinran both engaged in these, they left letters & writings to make sure that their followers/fellow practitioners could accurately convey the message.
Last edited by PorkChop on Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby PorkChop » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:35 am

daverupa wrote:I apologize for these mannerisms; internet communication can be really troublesome.
I said I was a student of the Buddhadhamma of the historical Buddha, and this is demonstrably different than the skillful couching of this Buddhadhamma within a Pure Land context, as we can find in the texts and commentaries you've provided.
To put it another way: these texts make reference to the 37 limbs which the Buddha did teach, as we know from the Nikayas/Agamas, so it is indeed the Buddhadhamma of the historical Buddha if we are enjoined to practice these things. If we are enjoined to engage other practices alongside that effort, as supports and aids, then this, too, may be the teaching of the Buddha in terms of its usefulness in supporting us on the Path.
Ancient and modern teachers have all done this sort of thing.


I think I understand where you're coming from now.
I thank you for your patience and apologize for both my misunderstandings & harsh words.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:04 am

daverupa wrote:A good find!

The Apadana is in the Khuddaka Nikaya, where early and late materials, largely verse compositions, find a home. (The Dhammapada, for example, may have been composed the way it was in response to the Bhagavad-Gita.) Anyway, the Apadana is probably datable to the 2nd or 3rd Council.

Here are some further details:

The Apadāna is certainly one of the latest works of the Khuddaka Nikāya and of the canon. As B. C. Law has pointed out in his History of Pali Literature (p. 7), the Apadāna is not included as a text of the Khuddaka Nikāya in the Dīghabhānaka list, but it finds mention as the thirteenth book of the Khuddaka Nikāya in the Majjhimabhānaka list. This would lead to the inference that at the time the Dīghabhānaka list was completed the Apadāna was not considered as a text of the Khuddaka Nikāya, and probably also of the canon. Moreover, the reference in the Apadāna to numerous Buddhas presupposes the legend of twenty-four previous Buddhas which is only a later development of the older legend of six Buddhas contained in other parts of the canon such as the Digha Nikāya. B. C. Law also says that one of the Apadānas seems to allude to the Kathāvatthu as an Abhidhamma composition (Ap. I, 37) and Rhys Davids argues that, if it is so, the Apadāna must be one of the very latest books of the canon.


(Now, I know to be on my toes about all this due to the scare quotes around concepts such as scholarship, so any who wish to express skepticism on this front as part of a fuller comment can simply flag that and I will leave it alone in order not to derail the thread.)

---

So, setting that aside, and using the .pdf from earlier, I am as yet unable to find something that we can recognize as among the 37 Limbs.

To be clear: ultimately this text would have been considered within its context, which was once the rest of the Nikayas/Agamas. If we are not going to make reference to this textual layer, such as Astus has indicated, we are picking and choosing from the Nikayas in a piecemeal fashion, which will need to be brought out.

It may comprise part of the context of proto-Mahayana sentiment, which would give a delightfully early provenance for Pure Land ideations, ~250 BCE or so, if the similarity holds up.


ahhhhh but this is exactly my point,in truth there is no "historical teachings" of the Buddha,the Pli Nikayas hold no more historical authenticity than the Mahayana Canon.

In fact these same scholars who claim Mahayana texts came later also state that 99.9% of the Pali Canon cannot be dated back to the time of the Buddha,in truth they claim that the ONLY suttas that
MIGHT trace back to the time of the Buddha are 3 suttas in the SUTTAPITAKA.

Also read the Digha Nikaya sutta 16 the Buddha actually tells Ananda that there are teachings he taught other people,that Ananda does not know about,and when theses people come and say this is what the Buddha taught me......dont dismiss them but compare their words to tha Dhamma you already have.


Hey Brother you know about the (have faith and get into the Pure Land teachings)
But have you read the actual in depth teachings that are found in the sutra itself?
Alot of wisdom to be had in those texts,alot if teachings on how to purify the mind.

Peace and Love
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?

Postby Jikan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:08 pm

Indrajala wrote:
longjie wrote:Although the conversation has long since died down... but I wanted to mention that reciting the name of Amitabha was certainly not invented in China or Japan, since the sutras themselves teach this method. The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra and the Shorter Sukhavativyuha Sutra both advocate reciting the name of Amitabha:


Sure, but some teachings take it to an extreme and assume if you just change your diet and recite a mistranslated Sanskrit phrase you'll somehow get an entry ticket into heaven, and maybe get your less than virtuous relatives in as well provided you get the good graces of a certain buddha or two.
.


Ven. Indrajala, with some time having passed since you wrote this... do you think the bolded bits are a fair assessment of any Pure Land teachings? To many of us, they appear instead to be a slander of the Dharma.
Thanks to the help of generous sponsors (most of them from DharmaWheel), I'm doing a Vajra Armor (Dorje Kotrab) self-retreat this summer. May the merit be yours!
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Jikan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
ahhhhh but this is exactly my point,in truth there is no "historical teachings" of the Buddha,the Pli Nikayas hold no more historical authenticity than the Mahayana Canon.



Exactly this. The notion of going back to some putative "pure" form of Buddhism by tracing back to the source of the teachings in one historical figure is more of a Protestant thing than a Buddhist thing. (google "protestant Buddhism" sometime.) It's a criterion that is incoherent at least in the Mahayana context.
Thanks to the help of generous sponsors (most of them from DharmaWheel), I'm doing a Vajra Armor (Dorje Kotrab) self-retreat this summer. May the merit be yours!
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby daverupa » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:15 pm

Jikan wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
ahhhhh but this is exactly my point,in truth there is no "historical teachings" of the Buddha,the Pli Nikayas hold no more historical authenticity than the Mahayana Canon.



Exactly this. The notion of going back to some putative "pure" form of Buddhism by tracing back to the source of the teachings in one historical figure is more of a Protestant thing than a Buddhist thing. (google "protestant Buddhism" sometime.) It's a criterion that is incoherent at least in the Mahayana context.


If this is the case, the Provenance of Pure Land Practice ultimately doesn't matter in a Mahayana context, while at the same time it has in this very thread been considered slander to suggest that the provenance does not reach the historical Buddha the way content in the Nikayas/Agamas can be shown to do (37 wings, nibbana, anatta, etc.). It's confusing to me to have responses aim at both targets.

The 37 Wings require reference to the Tathagata, the historical Buddha. This Buddha taught the Dhamma (37 Wings, nibbana, anatta, etc.) Then, whether we're talking about Theravada Abhidhamma or Prajnaparamita or Pure Land, we're talking about teaching strategies of various worth to various people at various times, aren't we? Teaching strategies which revolve around such core Buddhadhamma as the 37 Wings, but which provide various kinds of ropes and pulleys alongside this edifice to assist various kinds of beings? Teachings strategies, in short, which have various provenances?
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?

Postby Indrajala » Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:00 pm

Jikan wrote:Ven. Indrajala, with some time having passed since you wrote this... do you think the bolded bits are a fair assessment of any Pure Land teachings? To many of us, they appear instead to be a slander of the Dharma.


As a Buddhist monk I don't slander the Dharma.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5863
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Nepal

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby PorkChop » Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:24 pm

daverupa wrote:If this is the case, the Provenance of Pure Land Practice ultimately doesn't matter in a Mahayana context, while at the same time it has in this very thread been considered slander to suggest that the provenance does not reach the historical Buddha the way content in the Nikayas/Agamas can be shown to do (37 wings, nibbana, anatta, etc.). It's confusing to me to have responses aim at both targets.

The 37 Wings require reference to the Tathagata, the historical Buddha. This Buddha taught the Dhamma (37 Wings, nibbana, anatta, etc.) Then, whether we're talking about Theravada Abhidhamma or Prajnaparamita or Pure Land, we're talking about teaching strategies of various worth to various people at various times, aren't we? Teaching strategies which revolve around such core Buddhadhamma as the 37 Wings, but which provide various kinds of ropes and pulleys alongside this edifice to assist various kinds of beings? Teachings strategies, in short, which have various provenances?


He's saying that the idea of a single, locked down canon from a single, historical person being the only valid source of info (ie an orthodoxy) does not apply universally to all schools of Buddhism (even from early days). Furthermore, I think what he's dismissing is the accusations that the "new" strategies of presenting the teachings are somehow invalid because they are not some pristine, pure, perfectly preserved group of texts dating from the time of the historical Buddha. As if only the historical Buddha's particular presentation of the teachings was the only valid one and that any attempt to tailor the presentation of the teachings towards people of certain capacities was an offense to some sort of orthodoxy. The foundations are still there - 37 limbs, 8 fold path, dharma seals, etc, but presented in a different way.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Jikan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:04 pm

I think PorkChop articulated my position a bit better than I could. Thank you for that.

To go a bit further: I think it's an error to assume that the forms in which Buddhist practice may take must be restricted to those which were outlined by the particular culture in which Shakyamuni Buddha operated. For instance: Shakyamuni Buddha did not practice chod in the form in which chod was presented by Machig Labdron. Does this mean that Machig's chod is necessarily an inadequate Buddhist practice? I say no, because it is a beautiful crystallization of the Prajnaparamita teachings, for one, and also because it gets results. (Which reminds me... is the concept of upaya present in the Agamas?)

Pure Land practice may not have existed among the earliest Buddhist cultures, but this does not necessarily mean it is not a Buddhist practice (i.e., that it does not correspond to Buddhist reasoning or Buddhist teachings), or that it fails to get Buddhist results. Practices are means to an end, nothing more--a raft to get to the other shore. Because Pure Land practice gets good results, as Matylda has pointed out, and because it reaches people who would ordinarily not find a foothold in the Dharma at all, it is to my mind a good practice. Need a scriptural reference? See Lotus Sutra chapter 5.

:namaste:
Thanks to the help of generous sponsors (most of them from DharmaWheel), I'm doing a Vajra Armor (Dorje Kotrab) self-retreat this summer. May the merit be yours!
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?

Postby Lotus415 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:39 pm

Indrajala wrote:
Jikan wrote:Ven. Indrajala, with some time having passed since you wrote this... do you think the bolded bits are a fair assessment of any Pure Land teachings? To many of us, they appear instead to be a slander of the Dharma.


As a Buddhist monk I don't slander the Dharma.



Really? You've been working hard to talk down Pure Land Buddhism, unless of course you have decided it is not part of the Dharma. With your holier-than-thou quotes and smug look on your profile pic, I wish you peace and understanding.
I do not understand why people like you feel obsessed to prove how you are "right" and thousands of years of Buddha practice and accomplished masters are somehow "wrong".
Lotus415
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:42 pm

Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?

Postby Nighthawk » Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Indrajala wrote:
Jikan wrote:Ven. Indrajala, with some time having passed since you wrote this... do you think the bolded bits are a fair assessment of any Pure Land teachings? To many of us, they appear instead to be a slander of the Dharma.


As a Buddhist monk I don't slander the Dharma.

So you're incapable of slander because of your status as a monk?
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Provenance of Pure Land Practice

Postby Dodatsu » Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:18 pm

Dharma friends, let's not get into personal attacks...
Contemplating the power of Tathagata's Primal Vow,
One sees that no foolish being who encounters it passes by in vain.
When a person single-heartedly practices the saying of the Name alone,
It brings quickly to fullness and perfection [in that person] the great treasure ocean of true and real virtues.
- Shinran Shonin
User avatar
Dodatsu
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: What has Chinese Buddhism lost?

Postby Jikan » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:33 am

Indrajala wrote:
Jikan wrote:Ven. Indrajala, with some time having passed since you wrote this... do you think the bolded bits are a fair assessment of any Pure Land teachings? To many of us, they appear instead to be a slander of the Dharma.


As a Buddhist monk I don't slander the Dharma.


I'm interested to find out if you stand by your earlier characterization of Pure Land practice (quoted in my earlier post, to which you replied here). I asked because it seemed to some of us, as I said above, not representing the Dharma adequately or accurately, and hence slandering it. I take for granted that you keep your precepts purely, and I hope my comment did not imply that you did not.

The question still stands. Do you stand by your description of Pure Land practice as...
assume if you just change your diet and recite a mistranslated Sanskrit phrase you'll somehow get an entry ticket into heaven, and maybe get your less than virtuous relatives in as well provided you get the good graces of a certain buddha or two.
Thanks to the help of generous sponsors (most of them from DharmaWheel), I'm doing a Vajra Armor (Dorje Kotrab) self-retreat this summer. May the merit be yours!
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to East Asian Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Astus and 3 guests

>