Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?

[PadmaVonSamba]

I think, when one dwells on whether Pure Land is a real place or whether it is a metaphor for a state of mind, one misses the point of the teaching, and it is a point which can only be expressed through the very descriptions which make such a realm seem impossible in the first place.

There is a level of understanding which rises above any conflict between rational and irrational, real and unreal, this shore and that shore, logical or illogical. This is a level of direct perception which does not follow the patterns which bind one to samsaric suffering. It is a way of direct perception found in the Zen Koan, the Tantric visualization, and also in the ShinJin of Pure Land Buddhism.

It makes perfect sense, with the usual understanding of things, to ask if the Pure Land is real. But when we say "real" what we are asking is, "is the Pure Land real the same way that my own world right here is real?" and this is where problems arise, because when we talk about this world being 'real' we are talking about a reality based on limited perceptions, based on a dualism of self and other, based on clinging and attachments, and the Dharma teaches us that all of these things are somewhat delusional perceptions to begin with, and that because of them we don't see what is really there, we only see what we want to see, and so what we end up experiencing are merely projections of our own minds.

If we are asking whether Amitabha's Pure Realm can be mapped by NASA, the answer is probably no, but this is not because it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in the same way. If this is hard to understand, then consider the fact that while a brain exists in space, thoughts only exist in time. So, even though thinking is connected with brain activity, if you cut open a brain, you will not see any thoughts or memories. So, just as the physical brain and thoughts exist in different ways, Amitabha's Pure Land exists, but not in a way that NASA can gather data on it.

In that context, if the question comes up, "isn't the Pure Land just another way of describing a state of mind?" you can't really argue that it isn't --any more than the place where you are right now, sitting at your computer, is also a state of mind. Likewise, if you ask, "is it a real place?" then you have to consider what it is about where you are right now that deserves the label "real".

When a Buddha establishes a Pure Realm, who, or what is reborn there? There is no permanent self. Buddhism does not maintain any idea of a permanent soul that floats to Buddha-heaven. There is merely a self-replicating, and slightly changing river of karmic events. It doesn't matter if your body is alive or dead. Once something is set into motion, it continues moving until what propels it ceases. Can you direct the flow of this karmic river? According to Pure Land Buddhism, this flow is directed towards infinity(Amitabha) when you recite "namo Amitabha" or "Namo Omitofo" or "Namu Amida Butsu" --whatever language you speak. That's all that is happening. Recitation of Amitabha's name points your karmic river in a certain direction and then Amitabha does the rest. It's like the gravitational pull of the Sun. That which is infinite absorbs that which is finite. You are drawn to awakened realization because awakened is the mind's ultimate condition.

Mahayana Buddhists say that the original nature of the mind is awake. It is Buddha. But this buddha mind is clouded by the habits of clinging. So, this practice points one directly to that, bypassing any intellectual effort. A lot of westerners are really turned off by this fact, because they see it like praying to Jesus, like childish faith. Actually, it is a profound letting go of the clinging. It's like a really stupid koan. But without all those crazy two headed birds and jewel trees, the method isn't there, because you really have to let go of clinging to your "reality" and just jump into that.

[Nosta]

Great toughts

Thank you for sharing such brilliant arguments.

I really loved when you said the funny sentence "If we are asking whether Amitabha's Pure Realm can be mapped by NASA, the answer is probably no"

[Jikan]

When I first began learning about Buddhism, I used to consider it a very rational religion without mythological bull***, ritualistic practices and believes and practices...

It doesn't take much imagination to see how said bull**** doctrines and devotional practices can be understood in terms of basic Buddhist teachings such as upaya, emptiness, &c.

[PadmaVonSamba]

A lot of incense is made from cow dung.

[Indrajala]

A lot of incense is made from cow dung.

In India they still collect cow dung, form it into little discs and dry it in the sun. They use it for fuel for heating and cooking, as well as keeping mosquitoes out of the house.

I took this pic at Varanasi on the Ganges:



All those cattle wandering around provide a valuable source of cow dung.

Now

[PadmaVonSamba]

When I first began learning about Buddhism, I used to consider it a very rational religion without mythological bull***, ritualistic practices and believes and practices...

I think a person has to consider that:
1. There are (what are believed to be) the teachings of the Buddha.
These include or do not include a variety of texts.
2. There is the institutional preservation of these teachings, through lineages and traditions and so forth,
and that is what is generally regarded as "Buddhism".
These include commentaries and a variety of meditation practices and more.

From a Mahayana standpoint, I think, the only actual "dharma practice" is the generation of compassion and wisdom and skillful means. All the ritual activity, the incense and bell ringing and so forth are merely tools for developing that practice.
I have heard it said that Buddhism is a philosophy in that it can be understood intellectually
and it is a religion in that it can be experienced intuitively.

it has been said (for whatever it's worth) that when the Buddha spoke, everyone understood what he said according to their capacity and needs. A lot of people who are really turned off by "religion" appreciate Buddhism because you don't have to believe in myths and miracles. Nonetheless, the bull*** serves a function, and you can still learn from it.

I am very fortunate in that almost all of my teachers have been excellent vajrayana masters. But there is simply a lot of stuff in Tibetan Buddhism, things that are often regarded as superstition, that I know I will never feel a connection with. I am very skeptical and always look for scientific explanations of things, but I also know that there is something transmitted through poetry that is not conveyed in mere words, something in a Bach violin concerto that moves through a part of me that has nothing to do with rational thought. So, I know that not everything flows on a purely "logical" wavelength.

I think it is also possible to call all that Bull*** cow dung, and see it as, potentially, a kind of incense or at least as fuel.

[Kai]

My doubt is very basic.
In Buddhism we have to eliminate all kinds of discriminative thoughts and the most important thing that needs to be controlled (if not destroyed) is attachment (and desire). But then, why do the Pure Land sutras keep tempting the inquisitive Bodhisattvas about the delights they will find in Pure Land? Music, food, precious stones etc etc are all explained in detail. This begs another question, if the authors of Pure Land sutras have anyway included objects of all other sense desires, then why have they left sex in Pure Land? Like how the Quran assures Muslims that they will find virgins in heaven if they practice the religion diligently. If we find tasty food, awesome sights with various colors, various comforts, and all other delights in Pure Land, then why do we not get beautiful girls as well?

There is no need for sexual reproduction in Pure Land since no one dies and the population is ever increasing with Buddhists entering the Pure Land from millions of universe out there every second.

Also, if you read the actual Sutras, you will know that gender difference is non existence over there. Pure Land is not Islam's Heaven.......or the lower deva realms

By constantly imagining about the various delights in the fictional Pure Land, wouldn't the attachment and desire of the Bodhisattva grow rather than get eliminated?

Even in the current world, there are Buddhists who practiced under favourable conditions. In history, lots of kings practiced Dharma and some attained Enlightenment or Arahanthood. Its not the present or absence of sense objects that held practitioners back but their understanding, own determination and hard work that do.

The way I understand it is that Samsara is bad because we have so many desires and attachment here. Then why is Pure Land any difference? Is there anything like "complete satisfaction" (besides Nirvana) in Buddhism to begin with? Aren't all things impermanent?

Samara is bad because of impermanence and suffering. Many humans lacked the access to great Dharma teachers or books and died old before they even found one. In Pure Land, you have a permanent teacher in form of Amitabha Buddha Himself. You have eternal Dharma friends pushing you forwards in your quest for Buddhahood. And no one has to worry about missiles landing on your head when you do meditation and you don't have to sleep or eat in Pure Land, its not required. Hence, you can do a 24 Dharma practice in Pure Land without disturbances. This is the way how most Purelanders see the whole issues.

Lastly, Buddhism is often described by non Buddhists as being overly pessimistic and dull. I'm glad that Pure Land teaching exists because it shuts the mouths of all the critics up instantly and is able to attract thousands, if not millions, of people into Buddhism throughout the centuries.

[Huifeng]

I have another question for my fellow Pure Land practitioners.

When I first began learning about Buddhism, I used to consider it a very rational religion without mythological bull***, ritualistic practices and believes and practices that are in direct contradiction to modern science. However, as I read further I began finding Buddhism (especially Mahayana) to be approaching the same quality as that of any other Pagan or Abrahamic religion.

First off, it sounds like your first impressions of Buddhism were what are now considered to be "Protestant Buddhism". The first stages of Western contact with Buddhism occurred in a period of Western thought and ideals, post Enlightenment Europe, in which there was a movement away from the so-called superstition of the Catholic church, it's priestly ways, rituals - and towards an ideal of pure intellect and rational thought, free from priests, superstition, rite and ritual, etc. During this period, there was a huge amount of projection from these scholars of these ideals onto Buddhism. Witness the way that Pali Buddhism in particular was described by these people. They believed that any form of Buddhism that did not conform to their post-Enlightenment ideals was somehow corrupt and decayed, etc.

Don't worry. Pretty much anybody who first comes into contact with Buddhism outside of Asia (and many in Asia nowadays due to the back influence of this movement) had to encounter Buddhism through this lens. It's only once one really gets into it, knows the languages and history, etc. that one can start to see through this Western projection of Buddhism.

My doubt is very basic.
In Buddhism we have to eliminate all kinds of discriminative thoughts and the most important thing that needs to be controlled (if not destroyed) is attachment (and desire). But then, why do the Pure Land sutras keep tempting the inquisitive Bodhisattvas about the delights they will find in Pure Land? Music, food, precious stones etc etc are all explained in detail.

In general, much of Buddhism involves teachings to overcome desire.

However, I believe that you have made a mistake in assessing that the Pureland sutras are about "tempting the inquisitve bodhisattvas ...". Though the Purelands are described in this way, it is not to attract then with their sensual beauty or pleasures. The real attracting feature is that there are Buddhas there, who teach the Dharma, and a great Samgha community to practice with. This sort of "desire" is known as "chanda", and it is fundamentally quite different from sensual desire (raga, trsna, etc.) in Buddhist thought.

There are several different types of Pureland sutra, from Amitabha's Pureland, to that of Aksobhya, and others. Many of these texts explicitly say that if one is only attracted to the sensual beauty of the Pureland, it is impossible for them to be reborn there.

Rather, these beautiful scenes are the karmic results of the inner mental purity of the people who live there.

This begs another question, if the authors of Pure Land sutras have anyway included objects of all other sense desires, then why have they left sex in Pure Land? Like how the Quran assures Muslims that they will find virgins in heaven if they practice the religion diligently. If we find tasty food, awesome sights with various colors, various comforts, and all other delights in Pure Land, then why do we not get beautiful girls as well?

Again, the various objects are not described in terms of being pleasurable sense objects that one should seek.
They are described in terms of their ability to teach the Dharma, eg. wind chimes that teach the Dharma, etc.

By constantly imagining about the various delights in the fictional Pure Land, wouldn't the attachment and desire of the Bodhisattva grow rather than get eliminated?

Yes, if one merely perceives them as being pleasurable sensual objects, that will be an obstacle.
So that is why they are not taught in this manner.

The way I understand it is that Samsara is bad because we have so many desires and attachment here. Then why is Pure Land any difference? Is there anything like "complete satisfaction" (besides Nirvana) in Buddhism to begin with? Aren't all things impermanent?

"Complete satisfaction" to most people would be to totally satisfy all desires, ie. don't change the desires, but try to fulfill them.
In Buddhist terms, when one has no desires, there are not any desires left unfulfilled, and one has complete satisfaction.

Likewise, nirvana is not the attainment of some supra-sensory desirable object, but the absence of any seeking for any object.

~~ Huifeng

[Quiet Heart]

Question: is Pure Land "Buddhisim" contradictory to Buddhisim

Here's a story that may give you some insight imto the answer.

A person goes away leaving his trusted servant in charge of his house and family. When he is returning that servant comes running up to him.
"Oh master", he says, "I am so sorry to tell you that I have failed your trust. Please forgive me."
"Whatever is wrong?", asks the master.
"Your entire family has become sick", the servant replies, "and they are out of their mind. I do not know what to do."
"Have you had the doctor see them?", asks the master.
"Oh yes indeed", answers the servent,"In fact the doctor has been here and has given me medicine for all of your family. But because they are all sick, and deluded with fever, none of them will take the medicine the doctor has given for them. I very much fear that unless they do take it they will die."
"I see", says the master, "I will look into this matter."
So the master goes to see every member of his family. He finds his wife obsessed with dreams of money and a large beautiful house. So he tells her that if she takes the medicine the doctor gave her she will become rich. She takes that medicine, her fever is gone,and her delusions end.
His daughter is deluded with dreams of romance and a young man to fall in love with her and make her life happy forever. So he tells her to that medicine, and she will meet that young man. So his daughter takes the medicine, her fever goes and her delusions end. She is cured.
It is the same for each member of his family. Although the medicine for all of them is the same, each of the family takes that medicinefor their own reasons based upon their own fevered delusions.
But once they take their medicne, their fever is gone, their delusions end, and they are cured.

I pesume you see the point of that story...and how it relates to your question.
Because each person approaches the Dharma with different expections, a different feverish delusion, the medicine is presented to each person in a different way that their delusion will accept as the "one and only true cure."
Then when they have taken that medicine, and their feverish delusions have gone, they may then be free to see that Dharma as it truely is...outside of illusion and delusion.

[Aemilius]

Namdrol explained that Pure Lands are actually Bardo realms for those who cling to the idea of a buddhist heaven.

This idea is now wide spread, unfortunately. I am sure its cause is somebody's genuine spiritual attainment, but then there are other rivaling schools, and high authorities, who can't accept that, and they have put forward this "teaching" that pureland is merely a state in bardo. Simply put it is caused by a mere feeling of jealousy, and nothing else.

[Nosta]

About the desire question, just one thing: even on Theravada Schools or any other Mayahana school, boddhistavas, monks, ordinary people following the Dharma, etc, all of them must have the desire to achieve Nirvana and/or helping others. Its "chanda", like someone said here (i didnt knew that name). Its natural to have such desire and thats the best desire one can have. As some buddhist master said: the best desire is the desire of finishing with all the desires; when that happens, even that desire will vanish.

So, why wouldnt be natural to desire a rebirth on Pure Land? Thats almost the same that desire of achieving Nirvana.

Pure Land is a meanings, not the end byitself.

Sorry if didnt explain myself very well, but sometimes my english is not very good.

[Andreas Ludwig]

Pure Land is a meanings, not the end by itself

When I read this thread then this - again - seems to be the only view people have on Pure Land Buddhism and this is the only view that *may* cause the question whether it is contradictory to Buddhism or not. I don't know how many times I have tried to explain to others that Pure Land Buddhism is not a monolithic block, there are sub-traditions so to say. In Shinshu the Pure Land is NOT a means (which is what you meant in your post I suppose?) but indeed the end - because the Pure Land is a way to talk about Nirvana in positive terms that we can relate to, rather than in denials (like Theravada does). It's not a realm, a paradise, a bardo, a whatever...according to Shinran the Pure Land is Nirvana and birth in the Pure Land is attaining enlightenment. Nothing in this Pure Land tradition contradicts any Mahayana doctrine and Mahayana itself may not be what the historical Buddha literally said, but the walkthrough of buddhist ideas and philosophy that followed in the centuries after him when dharma seekers made their own insights and experiences based on the Buddhas teachings. Mahayana is a step in the evolution of the Dharma and the Pure Land idea is one way to use what Buddhism as a whole has to offer to achieve the ultimate goal - the end of suffering.

Gassho

Andreas

[Astus]

I don't know how many times I have tried to explain to others that Pure Land Buddhism is not a monolithic block, there are sub-traditions so to say. In Shinshu the Pure Land is NOT a means (which is what you meant in your post I suppose?) but indeed the end - because the Pure Land is a way to talk about Nirvana in positive terms that we can relate to, rather than in denials (like Theravada does).

And I have to add to this that the Shinshu interpretation is not monolithic either. There are people who view it as you said and others who view it in a different way where the Pure Land is an actual buddha-land and not a metaphor.

[Nosta]

Pure Land is a meanings, not the end by itself

When I read this thread then this - again - seems to be the only view people have on Pure Land Buddhism and this is the only view that *may* cause the question whether it is contradictory to Buddhism or not. I don't know how many times I have tried to explain to others that Pure Land Buddhism is not a monolithic block, there are sub-traditions so to say. In Shinshu the Pure Land is NOT a means (which is what you meant in your post I suppose?) but indeed the end - because the Pure Land is a way to talk about Nirvana in positive terms that we can relate to, rather than in denials (like Theravada does). It's not a realm, a paradise, a bardo, a whatever...according to Shinran the Pure Land is Nirvana and birth in the Pure Land is attaining enlightenment. Nothing in this Pure Land tradition contradicts any Mahayana doctrine and Mahayana itself may not be what the historical Buddha literally said, but the walkthrough of buddhist ideas and philosophy that followed in the centuries after him when dharma seekers made their own insights and experiences based on the Buddhas teachings. Mahayana is a step in the evolution of the Dharma and the Pure Land idea is one way to use what Buddhism as a whole has to offer to achieve the ultimate goal - the end of suffering.

Gassho

Andreas

You said exactly what i said but with other words. Saying that Pure Land is the end byitself, the Nirvana, is just the same that Pure Land is the meanings to achieve Niirvana. Just a little difference in words.

[Nighthawk]

Pure Land is a meanings, not the end by itself

When I read this thread then this - again - seems to be the only view people have on Pure Land Buddhism and this is the only view that *may* cause the question whether it is contradictory to Buddhism or not. I don't know how many times I have tried to explain to others that Pure Land Buddhism is not a monolithic block, there are sub-traditions so to say. In Shinshu the Pure Land is NOT a means (which is what you meant in your post I suppose?) but indeed the end - because the Pure Land is a way to talk about Nirvana in positive terms that we can relate to, rather than in denials (like Theravada does). It's not a realm, a paradise, a bardo, a whatever...according to Shinran the Pure Land is Nirvana and birth in the Pure Land is attaining enlightenment. Nothing in this Pure Land tradition contradicts any Mahayana doctrine and Mahayana itself may not be what the historical Buddha literally said, but the walkthrough of buddhist ideas and philosophy that followed in the centuries after him when dharma seekers made their own insights and experiences based on the Buddhas teachings. Mahayana is a step in the evolution of the Dharma and the Pure Land idea is one way to use what Buddhism as a whole has to offer to achieve the ultimate goal - the end of suffering.

Gassho

Andreas

Seems like some watered down version of Jodo Shinshu.

[Shutoku]

What Andreas posted is exactly how Jodo Shinshu is presented in Canada. I see nothing remotely "watered down" in his post.
It was as usual, spot on.

[Andreas Ludwig]

Dear Astus,

And I have to add to this that the Shinshu interpretation is not monolithic either. There are people who view it as you said and others who view it in a different way where the Pure Land is an actual buddha-land and not a metaphor.

I somehow expected that you would say this. People may view things as they wish, but there's no way to track such ideas back to Shinran, who was very specific in what he taught. But we had that before and I don't think it makes much sense to repeat that debate all over again.

Dear Nosta,

You said exactly what i said but with other words. Saying that Pure Land is the end byitself, the Nirvana, is just the same that Pure Land is the meanings to achieve Niirvana. Just a little difference in words.

No, it's not the same, at least not if your 'meanings' should rather be 'means' as I supposed earlier. Meanings doesn't make much sense to me in your sentence, so perhaps you could elaborate a bit on that - otherwise I don't understand what you mean. If you mean 'means' than the Pure Land would rather be a 'tool' or a cause for enlightenment, a condition for attaining Nirvana. But Nirvana is an unconditioned state, which is why Shinshu says you can not make enlightenment happen by any means. It happens or it doesn't, but whatever you do, there's nothing that will make it appear, you can not achieve it, you can just be open to its possibility. That the Pure Land is a 'paradise' or a environment of some sort where we can more easily cultivate the Dharma because it's an environment without suffering is in itself a contradiction to both - the idea of Nirvana (defined as a state without suffering) and the teaching that life as a human being is so precious, since we actually have the potential of realizing what is causing our suffering because we do suffer. The Pure Land as a form of cotton ball version of this world would actually take away our potential to become free, we would have the same reason to strive for enlightenment as the Devas have in their heavenly realms - no suffering, no real need to think about it. If the Pure Land is defined as a state without suffering, then there's no need to go any further because that is Nivana. Which is what Shinran taught.

Dear Ryoto,

Seems like some watered down version of Jodo Shinshu]

Since that is what Shinran taught I can easily live with his watered down version of Rennyos later institutionalized Shinshu, were he was going back to ideas that were part of Pure Land Buddhism before Shinran reinterpreted it completely.

Gassho

Andreas

[Nighthawk]

Andreas you're wrong about Shinran. There is a quote by which Shinran says quite explicitly that the people who slander the dharma by saying "THERE IS NO BUDDHA" are not to be reborn in the Pure Land. Those are the words of Shinran. Not Rennyo.

[Andreas Ludwig]

Ryoto,

well, do you think I don't know that quote by Shinran?

Question: What are the characteristics of slandering the
right dharma?

Answer: Saying there is no Buddha, no Buddha-dharma, no
bodhisattva, no bodhisattva-dharma. Deciding on such views,
whether through understanding thus in one's own mind or
receiving the ideas from others, is called slandering the
right dharma.

I know that particular quote and I know a zillion other quotes and statements by Shinran, trust me. I don't say 'there is no Buddha' and I don't say Shinran said that. There is definitely a Buddha, a reality that is limitless and compassion that is able to grasp human beings who can feel and realize that as Shinjin. I'm not talking about whether there is a Buddha, or not, but about the meaning of this reality and if you have read more than just that quote by Shinran it should have become clear to you that his view on Amida Buddha was not the simple idea that there is a deity-like being 'sitting somewhere in the west in a paradise that makes it easier for us to someday attain enlightenment'.

Gassho

Andreas

[Nighthawk]

So in other words you accept the Dharmakaya as true but reject the Sambhogakaya of Amitabha? Denying the Sambhogakaya of a Buddha is still slander. The trikaya doctrine is fundamental in Mahayana and last time I checked Jodo Shinshu is Mahayanist.