How do you experience PL?

[zsc]

My friend had a similar habit of performing a "dream-world" test except it wasn't a light switch but a cord to pull on.
I'm not sure what exact mantra they had been reciting, but I know it was one of unlimited compassion for other being's failings, and they had learnt to recite the mantra whilst bringing other people into thought, Friends & Foes, individually.
They told me that one time, in a dream, sometime after performing the mantra in their meditation practice, they paused before turning on the light (pulling the cord). Then, Turning around and expecting, to see their terrifying dream, it was right there in front of them--unbearably close. They then started to recite their mantra, except they didn't speak it--only the essence was there, and brought their terrifying fear into focus all the time whilst performing mantra essence. They told me that when they woke up a great weight had been lifted from their shoulders.

I wish I knew about yeombul practice when I was a teenager, because that was when I had those dreams a lot. Not so much anymore, though.

I forgot to mention I got the light switch test from watching HBO really late at night when I was 14 (yes not good lol). There was an animated short film where a guy was just exploring his dream world. He was really confused at first, then someone told him in his dream that if he was unsure he should see if light switches work how they were supposed to. If not, he was dreaming. In the next scene he walked into a bar full of people, flipped the switch, and the lights stayed on, and turns out he was still dreaming.

I've never been able to find it again, but maybe by posting this I can find someone who remembers this film

[sinweiy]

We know that Pure Land sutras were not spoken by historical Buddha, neither any of the Mahayana sutras, as far as we know. Almost all academic agreed on this.

no, I know/believe it's spoken by historical Buddha, if not I won't be here in Pureland Mahayana Forum and practicing it. I believe from this far from what I know about Buddhism, Mahayana are more spoken to lay people who are into bodhisattva-hood than to those ordained who are more into arahathood. and from what I learn about Lotus sutra, there are some teachings that are too difficult to be spoken to arhats. until now those teachings that are still sealed are those from Vajrayāna, and what slowly been revealed are Mahayana teachings. because to me, Buddhism tend to blend into a particular culture of a particular place and or time. even for Theravāda Buddhism in Thailand. and change/impermanence is a universal law spoken by Buddha himself. just like medicine need to keep improving to cope with upcoming illnesses/diseases.
more on Hīnayāna and Mahayana:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana

The Chinese monk Yijing who visited India in the 7th century CE, distinguishes Mahāyāna from Hīnayāna as follows:[18]

Both adopt one and the same Vinaya, and they have in common the prohibitions of the five offences, and also the practice of the Four Noble Truths. Those who venerate the bodhisattvas and read the Mahayana sūtras are called the Mahāyānists, while those who do not perform these are called the Hīnayānists.

How do you know Amitabha (or any other Buddha) and his Pure Land (or any other PL) are real?

So, how do you validate your beliefs? How do you know Amitabha and his PL are real? How do you experience it? How do you validate it?

as they say seeing is believing, I guess the closest, one can get to that is to join or participate in supportive recitation for the dying. then one can see and experience the "miracles" of this PL teaching. how the dying experience the joy of seeing the coming of Amitabha; how their bodies can remain soft; their face still looking bright and not pale; etc.

http://www.amtbweb.org/guidelines.html

ps: you know even though I stopped practicing for quite a while, but when ever I recite Amitabha/Amituofo, I can still experience the Renunciation it brings when reciting Him.

"Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught."
AN 3.72 - Ajivaka Sutta

[Nosta]

Sinwey, what do you mean by "and from what I learn about Lotus sutra, there are some teachings that are too difficult to be spoken to arhats. until now those teachings that are still sealed are those from Vajrayāna, and what slowly been revealed are Mahayana teachings."?

- the teachings hard to teach to arahats are about compassion? Often I think that arahats are very good entering jhanas, meditating, etc, but fail to show compassion;
- if the teachings are sealed, how do we know they exist? What kind of sealed teachings could they be?

About practice, I am a little flickering: sometimes I will have daily recitations and be aware of Amitabha and in such times I am more peaceful, more confidente and aware of things; other times I need to make a break...as a human prone to desires, I feel the need to do "anti-renunciation" stuff: listen to energetic music (trance, DnB, rock, etc), go out and have a drink with friends, have sex, play computer, make sports...etc.

EDIT: about knowing that Pure Land is real, there are some interesting readings. I am starting to read a new book where I THINK that there are such accounts:
Tulku Thondup-Peaceful Death, Joyful Rebirth_ A Tibetan Buddhist Guidebook-Shambhala (2006)

[sinweiy]

Sinwey, what do you mean by "and from what I learn about Lotus sutra, there are some teachings that are too difficult to be spoken to arhats. until now those teachings that are still sealed are those from Vajrayāna, and what slowly been revealed are Mahayana teachings."?

- the teachings hard to teach to arahats are about compassion? Often I think that arahats are very good entering jhanas, meditating, etc, but fail to show compassion;
- if the teachings are sealed, how do we know they exist? What kind of sealed teachings could they be?

most teachings from Vajrayāna are sealed and can only be revealed when the time is right. and if you really follow a Vajrayāna Rinpoche or Lama, they will transmit teaching personally to you. and others that are related to desire and some of it might seem "superstitious" to the norm, or certain use of spiritual-powers. that's why some teachings can only fit certain believe system. all and all is for the aim of renunciation.

About practice, I am a little flickering: sometimes I will have daily recitations and be aware of Amitabha and in such times I am more peaceful, more confidente and aware of things; other times I need to make a break...as a human prone to desires, I feel the need to do "anti-renunciation" stuff: listen to energetic music (trance, DnB, rock, etc), go out and have a drink with friends, have sex, play computer, make sports...etc.

that's where Vajrayāna and PL method/medicine comes in handy. because it's about practicing renunciation amidst lay activities rather than ordained activities. do you feel that all these lay activities are just temporary happiness? do you still feel empty after that?

[Rakz]

no, I know/believe it's spoken by historical Buddha, if not I won't be here in Pureland Mahayana Forum and practicing it.

Hi sinweiy,

Do you think ignoring what scholars have to say about it is actually a smart thing to do? It's been well established that none of the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the historical Buddha.

[Admin_PC]

no, I know/believe it's spoken by historical Buddha, if not I won't be here in Pureland Mahayana Forum and practicing it.

Hi sinweiy,

Do you think ignoring what scholars have to say about it is actually a smart thing to do? It's been well established that none of the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the historical Buddha.

Just tossing this out there for consideration...
It's one thing to say that composition of said sutra was at a certain time, it's a completely different thing to say that the teachings themselves came from a certain time.
One thing that gets overlooked is that the Pali Suttas show a lot of Vedic influence in their composition, in the sense that they often parody passages from the Vedas.
When you digest that, you realize that both instances are situations where people are using devices to convey teachings.
It's said that the Buddha didn't leave the world until he felt that the sangha he left behind was capable of being able to teach.
Why is it that when the sangha actually tries to teach instead of parroting words spoken before, that there's an issue of legitimacy?
The argument that every single word that the Buddha said on this earth is contained in the Pali Suttas is undefendable.
That argument can't be made when they have a hard time deciding which passages are from that time and not when so much of it shows derivative influence.
It's a pretty safe argument that none of the Pali Suttas were spoken as such by the historical Buddha either.

[daverupa]

It's a pretty safe argument that none of the Pali Suttas were spoken as such by the historical Buddha either.

This sets up a false equivalency; but, this discussion has been fleshed out e.g. elsewhere & elsewhere and so on.

It's probably off-topic here.

[Admin_PC]

It's a pretty safe argument that none of the Pali Suttas were spoken as such by the historical Buddha either.

This sets up a false equivalency; but, this discussion has been fleshed out e.g. elsewhere & elsewhere and so on.

It's probably off-topic here.

In who's eyes is it a "false" equivalency?
Seriously, who's eyes?
Self-identified Theravadan historians?
"Early Buddhism" fanatics?
Get that fundamentalist garbage off of here.

[Admin_PC]

Next we're going to be told that Theravadan commentaries and modern rationalist-materialist-secularist stances are the only valid interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. I've already laid out a compelling case elsewhere for themes consistent with Pure Land teachings, with a bunch of references in the Pali Canon (no less). You cannot disprove the idea that householders from the get-go interpreted the Buddha's teachings to mean something different than what appears in the Theravadan commentaries. Many of those commentaries don't date back before Buddhagosa - which was centuries after the translation of the Pure Land sutras, let alone the composition. I was careful with my words, sutras != teachings; the former inevitably has to come after the later, this is fact. By the Theravadans' own account, the sutras were not composed until the first Buddhist council and by a group that was exclusively arahants (and most likely renunciates); the other group(s) were not represented (bodhisattvas; by definition, would not have been included). We know from the Pali Canon itself that householders were given different teachings than the renunciates, to maintain otherwise is wishful thinking. You need to stop trying to assert what is Dhamma and aDhamma on the subforums of other traditions based on a Theravadan outlook.

[daverupa]

...Theravadan... Theravadan outlook.

Nikayas =/= Theravada.

Anyway, I provided a link to a compelling discussion we both had with each other already, on this very topic. No need to rehash it here.

[Admin_PC]

...Theravadan... Theravadan outlook.

Nikayas =/= Theravada.
Anyway, I provided a link to a compelling discussion we both had with each other already, on this very topic. No need to rehash it here.

Pali certainly is the language of the Theravada (let's be honest here, the Tamraparniya), and by default the Pali Nikayas belong to that school.
The Sarvastivadans didn't use Pali and they did not call their texts "Nikayas".
The Mahasanghikans didn't use Pali and they did not call their texts "Nikayas".
The Agamas =/= the Nikayas; the fact alone that Nagarjuna used completely different early sutras on emptiness is evidence of this.

Now the Sarvastivadans and Mahasanghikans eventually adopted the Pure Land outlook (if they didn't do so from the beginning), so it's not outrageous to think that their interpretation of the Agamas was more conducive to the Pure Land outlook than the interpretation of the Pali Nikayas by the Tamraparniya (even though, I've already pointed out multiple areas of consistency). Furthermore, even if one hasn't explicitly read Tamraparniyan commentaries on the Pali Nikayas, the fact that Pali as a language has been maintained largely by those of the Tamraparniyan school, and translations of the Nikayas has been done by people of that school, then it's not unreasonable to point at contamination by the commentaries & doctrines of that school.

No, not a discussion on this topic. You felt compelled to whip your scholastic weiner out on this topic to try to put down this tradition on its own subforum because academic research backs up a claim that I did not make. You quoted an old thread rehashing a debate over a claim I did not make.

The claim that Ananda remembered everything the Buddha taught in the 20 years before he even joined the order is a claim that cannot be substantiated. The statement that the Nikayas contain the sum total of all teachings by the Buddha is also not a claim that has any legs. I'm making the claim that there are teachings that didn't make it into the canon (at least not the Nikayas), passed down from teacher to student, within temples, or within families that showed up in later documents. You cannot debate this claim, you cannot disprove this claim, and so you trot out the tired, long-dead horse of the argument of late documents "proving" invalidity of teachings. I'm calling you on it.

You can keep proselytizing your narrow interpretation on the Dharma as long as the mods let you, but doesn't mean the rest of us are giving you a free pass. "False equivalency" is code word for some ultimacy of your approved canon. The paternalism exhibited by the attempted assertion of what is and is not valid interpretation and preservation of teachings violates TOS imho. This is our subforum for our schools to discuss a shared tradition. The claim I'm making is supported by our respective schools. You might do well to remember that this is not a Theravadan or "Early Buddhism" board where we are trying to assert our tradition to have sole claim to what is and is not Dharma, otherwise your tactics might have some validity. Rather, this situation is the reverse of that hypothetical situation with you making the assertions. As this is a Pure Land subforum, we do not respect your authority on what constitutes Dharma and we reject your feeble attempt at dismissing the teachings of our schools.

[JamyangTashi]

Do you think ignoring what scholars have to say about it is actually a smart thing to do? It's been well established that none of the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the historical Buddha.

Why is it that when the sangha actually tries to teach instead of parroting words spoken before, that there's an issue of legitimacy?
The argument that every single word that the Buddha said on this earth is contained in the Pali Suttas is undefendable.

These responses suggest a lot of passion about the subject and not carefully reading what Nighthawk asked. If you consider sutras that were not spoken by the historical Buddha to be legitimate or if you think ignoring what scholars have to say is a smart choice, you can just say so. There is no need to attack fellow practitioners or their scriptures in the process.

May you reach liberation through whatever scriptures or practices you consider to be legitimate.

[Admin_PC]

Do you think ignoring what scholars have to say about it is actually a smart thing to do? It's been well established that none of the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the historical Buddha.

Why is it that when the sangha actually tries to teach instead of parroting words spoken before, that there's an issue of legitimacy?
The argument that every single word that the Buddha said on this earth is contained in the Pali Suttas is undefendable.

These responses suggest a lot of passion about the subject and not carefully reading what Nighthawk asked. If you consider sutras that were not spoken by the historical Buddha to be legitimate, you can just say so. There is no need to attack fellow practitioners or their scriptures in the process.

May you reach liberation through whatever scriptures or practices you consider to be legitimate.

I consider the teachings to be legitimate and spoken by the historical Buddha, regardless of whether they're contained in a sutra that had been written down soon after the Buddha's death or later, that's the point I"m trying to make. I believe the point Sinweiy was trying to make in his post would agree with this (he used the term "teachings" in a couple places, not necessarily the term "sutras").

The "passion" comes from the fact that we've gotta deal with this stinky dead horse every month or so; sometimes on a weekly basis. I'm not attacking anybody, I'm responding to a fellow Pure Land enthusiast who seems to be influenced by the views of another school and anticipating the response from folks like daverupa. Can't even have an in-house doctrinal discussion without being jumped on by Early Buddhism purists. This place should be renamed the "Pure Land Defends it's Legitimacy" subforum.

[JamyangTashi]

The "passion" comes from the fact that we've gotta deal with this stinky dead horse every month or so; sometimes on a weekly basis. I'm not attacking anybody, I'm responding to a fellow Pure Land enthusiast who seems to be influenced by the views of another school and anticipating the response from folks like daverupa. Can't even have an in-house doctrinal discussion without being jumped on by Early Buddhism purists. This place should be renamed the "Pure Land Defends it's Legitimacy" subforum.

Do Pure Land teachings need to be defended? If it works and someone else asks a question about academic findings, that doesn't seem to take away from the ability to practice Pure Land teachings. Either contradictory academic findings can be referenced or reasons can be given why the academic findings are irrelevant. If there's a strong feeling of a need to defend legitimacy repeatedly, perhaps it would be helpful to write up the explanation once somewhere that can be referenced whenever someone has questions about it. It's not clear why there should be a need to discuss the scriptures of other traditions in order to explain the legitimacy of Pure Land teachings, unless those other scriptures themselves are clearly legitimate and are being used to support the argument.

This digression about the "stinky dead horse" of the "purists" seems unnecessary and unrelated to the topic of the experience of Pure Land. The experience itself could be seen as one source of legitimacy. Some people might view academic findings to be an important influence on their experience of Pure Land as well. Nighthawk's question didn't say anything about Pali Suttas, and such a discussion doesn't seem to be necessary in this thread. Once a discussion about those other subjects has begun, it can be expected that it will attract posters who have something to say related to those topics. If there's no desire to discuss the topic, one solution is to not start discussing the topic.

[Admin_PC]

Do Pure Land teachings need to be defended?

I would say "yes". I've seen more than one earnest student chased off the Pure Land path due to those adamant in asserting that Pure Land teachings are not Buddhadharma.

If it works and someone else asks a question about academic findings, that doesn't seem to take away from the ability to practice Pure Land teachings. Either contradictory academic findings can be referenced or reasons can be given why the academic findings are irrelevant. If there's a strong feeling of a need to defend legitimacy repeatedly, perhaps it would be helpful to write up the explanation once somewhere that can be referenced whenever someone has questions about it.

Did that already. In fact it was quoted in this thread as supposed proof of the invalidity of the claim that the teachings are based on the words of the "Historical Buddha" TM. Meaning that all points of discussion & apologetic sutra quotations (from suttas typically touted as being the words of the "Historical Buddha" TM) were summarily ignored. So a fat load of good that did.

It's not clear why there should be a need to discuss the scriptures of other traditions in order to explain the legitimacy of Pure Land teachings, unless those other scriptures themselves are clearly legitimate and are being used to support the argument.

That's generally the gist. The other sutras don't get attacked/dismissed on a regular basis; so it's typically safer to quote parallels. Unfortunately, such research still gets ignored.

This digression about the "stinky dead horse" of the "purists" seems unnecessary and unrelated to the topic of the experience of Pure Land. The experience itself could be seen as one source of legitimacy.

Not when people dismiss the entire possibility of such an experience until one is dead; which tends to equate to outright dismissal considering that any reports of post-mortem experience are also summarily dismissed outright.

Some people might view academic findings to be an important influence on their experience of Pure Land as well. Nighthawk's question didn't say anything about Pali Suttas, and such a discussion doesn't seem to be necessary in this thread.

I call BS. Merely bringing up the words of the "Historical Buddha"TM implies reliance on sutras of "the earliest strata", which to academics (many of whom openly admit to being practitioners of Theravada) almost unanimously equate to certain Pali Suttas. Mentioning the "Historical Buddha" TM and expecting no reference to the Pali Suttas is just unrealistic. Like it or not, that is the de facto rubric to which all other teachings of Buddhism are held to when discussions of authenticity come up.

Once a discussion about those other subjects has begun, it can be expected that it will attract posters who have something to say related to those topics. If there's no desire to discuss the topic, one solution is to not start discussing the topic.

Discussion on those "other subjects" had already begun as soon as words of the "Historical Buddha" TM was brought up. What I don't understand is why on a Pure Land subforum that we must discuss things in a way palatable to the sensitivities of the followers of Theravada & the Pali Nikayas and be forced to deny our own tradition & the teachings of our schools. Furthermore, it's being made to sound as if I'm badmouthing other traditions; I most emphatically am not. I am disparaging the opinions of those who feel the need to assert that the teachings of the Pure Land schools are inconsistent, incompatible, and unrelated to the words of the "Historical Buddha" TM.

[JamyangTashi]

I call BS. Merely bringing up the words of the "Historical Buddha"TM implies reliance on sutras of "the earliest strata", which to academics (many of whom openly admit to being practitioners of Theravada) almost unanimously equate to certain Pali Suttas. Mentioning the "Historical Buddha" TM and expecting no reference to the Pali Suttas is just unrealistic. Like it or not, that is the de facto rubric to which all other teachings of Buddhism are held to when discussions of authenticity come up.

This makes it sound like the Pure Land tradition rejects the existence of the historical Buddha, or has no direct connection to the historical Buddha. In the first case, the academic findings are irrelevant. In the second case, the historical Buddha is simply not the measure of legitimacy. If the Pure Land tradition accepts the existence of a historical Buddha and has reason to believe the teachings originate with that historical Buddha, then it would seem to be more effective to explain that connection than to discuss the connection or lack thereof in other teachings and scriptures. In that case, what's wrong with discussing the historical Buddha in the Pure Land forum in order to explain how Pure Land practices are connected to his teachings?

Furthermore, it's being made to sound as if I'm badmouthing other traditions; I most emphatically am not. I am disparaging the opinions of those who feel the need to assert that the teachings of the Pure Land schools are inconsistent, incompatible, and unrelated to the words of the "Historical Buddha" TM.

Why disparage anyone or their opinions at all? If Pure Land teachings are consistent, compatible, and related to the words of the historical Buddha, why not simply explain how this is so? Such a positive explanation could provide much more benefit for Pure Land practitioners than any amount of disparaging the opinions of others.

[明安 Myoan]

Sort of related, if people have serious doubts about this or that, why not marry PL with whatever one feels is proper Buddhism?

Since I started praying to Amitabha and asking for even a tiny bit of help now and then, so many obstacles have been cleared.
Years of doubt laid down, saying no to a 15-year addiction for the first time, dharma resources I'd never heard of before coming into my possession saying just what I needed to hear, and access concentration, something I'd felt was impossible for me.
It's felt like a student-teacher relationship, Amitabha teaching me renunciation and clearing up confusion, and me trying to be a good student and practice my little samatha and vipassana exercises.

It seems to me that if we're doubting, then that's the hindrance at hand. Intellectualizing about the historical nature of Pure Land is just the kind of thing that doubt thrives on. No disrespect meant to anyone for whom this is a very important issue. For someone burning with doubt though, I wonder about the expediency of such a means.
Put out the fire first, then worry about the details of how it started after.

For myself anyway, Amitabha has been just the help I've needed.
I hope others benefit in the same way.

[Admin_PC]

If the Pure Land tradition accepts the existence of a historical Buddha and has reason to believe the teachings originate with that historical Buddha, then it would seem to be more effective to explain that connection than to discuss the connection or lack thereof in other teachings and scriptures. In that case, what's wrong with discussing the historical Buddha in the Pure Land forum in order to explain how Pure Land practices are connected to his teachings?

I'm sorry, maybe there's a misunderstanding. That's what I did in the other thread. I've done it many, many times. I can't exactly use Pure Land sutras for this, because they dismiss Pure Land sutras outright. I had to use sutras that are more palatable to academics, hence the Pali Canon. I went through and showed the parallels in that other thread that was referenced. Apparently it's being/been summarily ignored or just plain dismissed.

So this time I tried the standpoint of a tradition outside sutras; which is a tactic Zen gets to use with minimal complaint, and it makes sense given doctrinal/commentarial standpoints of schools like Mahasangikas. But apparently, such an outlook doesn't fit Bhikkhu Sujato's view of what the Early Buddhist schools practiced; so it's invalid according to some here.

I do tend to take issue with the assumption that a school's teachings have nothing to do with the Historical Buddha just because the sutras are late and because the more generally accepted sutras are not known for such teachings (not that they don't say similar things). I feel like the argument's been done to death. I don't feel like it really belongs here. I think Sinweiy gave a decent accounting of himself and the standard East Asian Mahayana outlook on things. I think that the utter paranoia about whether or not certain teachings are "historical" or not according to the views of certain academics is not something that should be reinforced here.

Why disparage anyone or their opinions at all?

My point exactly. Why the need for constant assertion that Pure Land sutras are unrelated to the words of the Historical Buddha? Why do they need to disparage a tradition like that? Why can't I refute a disparaging claim that Nighthawk was repeating without being accused of being anti-academic, anti-Pali, or emotional? Why can't I question the foundations on which they would base such a disparaging claim? Why do I need to take it seriously? Why do I need to say words that conform to such claims here on a Pure Land forum?

If Pure Land teachings are consistent, compatible, and related to the words of the historical Buddha, why not simply explain how this is so? Such a positive explanation could provide much more benefit for Pure Land practitioners than any amount of disparaging the opinions of others.

I did this. I've done this multiple times. Seems like I do it monthly. It doesn't sink in. On a Pure Land forum I shouldn't even have to do this, let alone frequently. Falling back on a claim of doctrines outside of sutras shouldn't be so harshly disputed either, not here and not with so many early schools with similar in-house doctrines. If someone makes an unfair assertion about the Pure Land tradition, I am allowed to disagree, I am allowed to think very little of such an opinion, I do not have to buy into it, and I shouldn't be expected to on a Pure Land subforum. See, it'd be a different story if this was on an "Early Buddhism" subforum.


EDIT: To tail-end duckfiasco's awesome post. Doubt is the one thing that could derail & prevent Pure Land birth. According to Shinran, it's the main reason we've bounced around in the endless cycle of samsara. This might explain some of my reactions against those who would wish to instill doubt in others; especially in folks not so well established on the path that come here to this subforum for Pure Land info. Beyond proselytizing a certain view of Dharma, it's spiritual sabotage.

[明安 Myoan]

A quick follow-up.
I didn't start saying Amitabha's name because I was already a Pure Land practitioner. I'm not necessarily that now, either.
I had no idea of the details of the Pure Land or Amitabha's mystical features. I started from a very skeptical "prove it" place.
I gave it a try anyway.
Even this rational skeptic couldn't deny the actual, tangible results and experiences that followed.
One simple week of saying his name has been like throwing gunpowder on my tiny spark of meditation practice.

What does someone have to lose from saying Amitabha's name for one day, at least letting their poor doubts which have been running around nonstop take a break?

I'd hate for someone wrestling with doubt, who could benefit as much as I have, let that same doubt stop them from something wonderful.

Okay I've gushed enough

[hop.pala]

So, how do you validate your beliefs? How do you know Amitabha and his PL are real? How do you experience it? How do you validate it?

Well a long time looking for this.I have an idea:the hindu devanchan is the pure land.
And now theosophical explanation:
After that the higher self dropped the astral,and mental body,the state is for the consciousness the devanchane state.Strictly speaking i muss contradict,i think the pure land state is not in the strict sense buddhaland.It is just a theory that i examine now.