commonalities and divergences between traditions...

[Zenshin 善心]

i enjoy exploring the commonalities and divergences between different traditions and am curious to know - which school/s do you feel most closely resemble your own? which least closely? why? cheers

[Indrajala]

enjoy exploring the commonalities and divergences between different traditions and am curious to know - which school/s do you feel most closely resemble your own? which least closely? why? cheers

I am rather ecumenical, having teachers from various traditions.

I am least interested in any kind of Pure Land practice or thought for the simple reason it strikes me as escapism and inappropriate for serious bodhisattva aspirants.

[Zenshin 善心]

enjoy exploring the commonalities and divergences between different traditions and am curious to know - which school/s do you feel most closely resemble your own? which least closely? why? cheers

I am rather ecumenical, having teachers from various traditions.

I am least interested in any kind of Pure Land practice or thought for the simple reason it strikes me as escapism and inappropriate for serious bodhisattva aspirants.

odd, always had you pegged as a big Shinran fan Huseng

[Mr. G]

I am least interested in any kind of Pure Land practice or thought for the simple reason it strikes me as escapism and inappropriate for serious bodhisattva aspirants.

Hi Huseng,

I know you're not into Pure Land Buddhism, but would you agree that it is a valid practice that leads one to enlightenment (though you may not agree it is the most efficient)? To me, Nien-Fo/Nembutsu is another form of buddhanusmrti.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations:

"The Sutta Nipata of the Pali Canon is generally held by scholars to be one of the oldest extant Buddhist texts. At the very end of the Sutta Nipata, in a section also held to be among the oldest strata of that text, is a wonderfully moving and, I think, potentially significant discussion. A Brahmin named Pingiya 'the wise' praises Buddha in heartfelt terms:

They call him Buddha, Enlightened, Awake, dissolving darkness, with total vision, and knowing the world to its ends...This man...is the man I follow...This prince, this beam of light, Gotama, was the only one who dissolved the darkness. This man Gotama is a universe of wisdom and a world of understanding.

Why is it, Pingiya is asked that you do not spend all your time with the Buddha, that wonderful teacher? Pingiya replies that he himself is old, he cannot follow the Buddha physically, for 'my body is decaying'. But:

there is no moment for me, however small, that is spent away from Gotama, from this universe of wisdom, this world of understanding...with constant and careful vigilance it is possible for me to see him with my mind as clearly with my eyes, in night as well as day. And since I spend my nights revering him, there is not, to my mind, a single moment spent away from him.

In this ancient and extraordinary discussion Pingiya indicates that it was possible through his awareness, through his meditation, for him to be constantly in the presence of the Buddha and constantly revere him. Towards the end, the Buddha himself testifies that Pingiya too will go to 'the further shore' of enlightenment.

Pingiya's praise of the Buddha and his reference to seeing him with the mind appear to connect with the practice of buddhanusmrti, recollection of the Buddha, a practice known from other contexts in the Pali Canon and practiced by, as far as we can tell, all schools of Buddhism."

[ronnewmexico]

I own no school of buddhism.

But verseing opinion though that be true, first exposure to pure land, then studying all, voluteering at a Zen place for quite some time then a tibetan place for quite some time(stealing things from them)... then practicing......I use mostly tools from tibetan source but occasionally also with tools from zen and pure land.


Theravadan I have looked at their forms such as monastic forest monks things of that sort and find equal things there as well. Do not use them as they seem about the same. This is easier but I think it is the same, just less accessible is theravadan. So I use what is more available.

To those that will then say...oh he is new to this, or a dillatant a picker a chooser...no.... I have many trainings and empowerments in tibetan buddhism. Have spent time in retreat house as much as or more than many here.... I just find all to be equal in their abillity to be used...all schools, I own none.

Pure land or theravadan or mayahanan or any other thing really to my opinion we must be to a degree consistant that is important.
But to think we are so close to enlightenment that we will carry specific knowledge of this sort from this life to the bardo and then to another life....I think that is silly a bit.

REally we are mostly not that close to enlightenment that it makes a bit of difference pure land or theravadan or m or any other...buddhism it is not theism absolutism nor eternilism .....we are on the right path Some sooner some later...what the import of that. For most none.

Next life perhaps theravadan if that presents in circumstance. I cannot choose my circumstance certainly to such a specific degree nor know karma to such a fine point....others think they can...well they can then.

So the answer...formal training I use tibetan
Informally...Zen then pure land

Practice wise the fundamental training is tibetan, direction of spiritual friends in this school.... augumented by a bit zen in conceptual fashion and a bit pure land.
Mantra is what I use in the main from pure land. Choice of mantra. Chanting and singing other but also that.
So they are all common in a fashion as tools they can be used for purpose.
All uncommon in that it is specific to the person the choice.

Error and truth can be also found in all.

[catmoon]

I think all the major schools are very similar. From the spare elegance of Zen to the huts of Forest Tradition monks, from the subtle complexities of Tibetan Buddhism to the simple faith and inexhaustable determination of the Purelanders, a single scent arises. All practice compassion, equanimity, meditation and good works. And all revere the Buddha as teacher.

[ronnewmexico]

Well quite a bit poetic, succient, and absolutely true, that.
Well said.

What school teaches such conciseness I will have to steal that

[catmoon]

Well quite a bit poetic, succient, and absolutely true, that.
Well said.

What school teaches such conciseness I will have to steal that

I think that is the first time in my life anyone has accused me of being concise. What a strange sensation.

[Dechen Norbu]

I think all the major schools are very similar. From the spare elegance of Zen to the huts of Forest Tradition monks, from the subtle complexities of Tibetan Buddhism to the simple faith and inexhaustable determination of the Purelanders, a single scent arises. All practice compassion, equanimity, meditation and good works. And all revere the Buddha as teacher.

Very well put, Mr. Catmoon.

[ronnewmexico]

Well if it makes one feel better...consider the source...

[Indrajala]

I know you're not into Pure Land Buddhism, but would you agree that it is a valid practice that leads one to enlightenment (though you may not agree it is the most efficient)? To me, Nien-Fo/Nembutsu is another form of buddhanusmrti.

It will not lead to liberation in this life. In fact, the systems of Pure Land Buddhism generally say that: you will achieve rebirth following this life and then eventually attain realization and liberation. For some I suppose reassurances of a rebirth in a pure land is something akin to liberation as it might erase fears of what will come post-mortem, but in my humble opinion that is a huge gamble.

There is no guarantee of where anyone besides high level bodhisattvas will be reborn. We ordinary people have no control over where we will be reborn as at death it is our karma, not our will, that dictates our fates.

If it was as easy as begging the grace of Amitabha, then there would be no need to describe at length the potential fates what will face for one's deeds in this life and other lives following death. You could just as well live a life of evil and escape the consequences of it by aspiring for rebirth in a Pure Land. This is what Shinran suggested: even evil people can achieve rebirth in the Pure Land.

For bodhisattva aspirants it is best to aspire to tough it out in the rough and tumble world, and purify one's mind while actively attaining true compassion owing to the horrid condition of our world. This kind of thing is discussed in many Mahāyāna scriptures. In some realms it is quite easy and suffering is much less than here, but the problem is that under such conditions you don't generate compassion. Wisdom perhaps, but not compassion, and thus the bodhisattva path is much more difficult. It is the horrors and hardships with which bodhisattvas come to realize compassion first-hand.

Think of it like this: there are people who advocate on behalf of the poor and oppressed, but live in up-scale neighbourhoods with minimal crime and no poverty, and those who live amongst the poor and oppressed, and have to experience much of the same hardships and issues as they do. Who will have genuine compassion?

This is why Pure Land Buddhism strikes me as escapism. You read the descriptions of what people hope to experience after death, and it is quite divorced from the reality of our ordinary world. It might sound appealing -- a land of gems and beauty, free of all physical hardships, but there is scarce reason in such circumstances to really worry about anyone or anything in a tangible way, so generation of compassion will be stalled. The same question is raised in regards to deities residing in states of bliss existence, free of having to even conceive of suffering in themselves, let alone others.

Recollection of the Buddha is a method of having qualities of the Buddha emerge within oneself. What you contemplate, you imitate, so recollecting the Buddha will have one imitate and foster qualities of an enlightened one. This is a good practice of course. However, if you are going to emulate the qualities of a Buddha, then you should understand that Buddhas don't escape into some realm of paradise and bliss. They remain amongst sentient beings as they consider as themselves all sentient beings.

In other words, recollection and emulation of the Buddha would mean facing suffering and conquering it rather than praying to be able to escape into some realm "out there" where minimal suffering exists.

[Jikan]

Commonalities and divergences:

In terms of practice, I'm interested in the ways in which shamatha and vipashyana are presented in different schools.

In terms of doctrine, I'm interested in the distinct approaches to Buddhagarbha/Buddha-nature and the two truths taken across various Mahayana schools.

[tobes]

I think all the major schools are very similar. From the spare elegance of Zen to the huts of Forest Tradition monks, from the subtle complexities of Tibetan Buddhism to the simple faith and inexhaustable determination of the Purelanders, a single scent arises. All practice compassion, equanimity, meditation and good works. And all revere the Buddha as teacher.

Very well put, Mr. Catmoon.

Agreed.

[tobes]

I know you're not into Pure Land Buddhism, but would you agree that it is a valid practice that leads one to enlightenment (though you may not agree it is the most efficient)? To me, Nien-Fo/Nembutsu is another form of buddhanusmrti.

It will not lead to liberation in this life. In fact, the systems of Pure Land Buddhism generally say that: you will achieve rebirth following this life and then eventually attain realization and liberation. For some I suppose reassurances of a rebirth in a pure land is something akin to liberation as it might erase fears of what will come post-mortem, but in my humble opinion that is a huge gamble.

There is no guarantee of where anyone besides high level bodhisattvas will be reborn. We ordinary people have no control over where we will be reborn as at death it is our karma, not our will, that dictates our fates.

If it was as easy as begging the grace of Amitabha, then there would be no need to describe at length the potential fates what will face for one's deeds in this life and other lives following death. You could just as well live a life of evil and escape the consequences of it by aspiring for rebirth in a Pure Land. This is what Shinran suggested: even evil people can achieve rebirth in the Pure Land.

For bodhisattva aspirants it is best to aspire to tough it out in the rough and tumble world, and purify one's mind while actively attaining true compassion owing to the horrid condition of our world. This kind of thing is discussed in many Mahāyāna scriptures. In some realms it is quite easy and suffering is much less than here, but the problem is that under such conditions you don't generate compassion. Wisdom perhaps, but not compassion, and thus the bodhisattva path is much more difficult. It is the horrors and hardships with which bodhisattvas come to realize compassion first-hand.

Think of it like this: there are people who advocate on behalf of the poor and oppressed, but live in up-scale neighbourhoods with minimal crime and no poverty, and those who live amongst the poor and oppressed, and have to experience much of the same hardships and issues as they do. Who will have genuine compassion?

This is why Pure Land Buddhism strikes me as escapism. You read the descriptions of what people hope to experience after death, and it is quite divorced from the reality of our ordinary world. It might sound appealing -- a land of gems and beauty, free of all physical hardships, but there is scarce reason in such circumstances to really worry about anyone or anything in a tangible way, so generation of compassion will be stalled. The same question is raised in regards to deities residing in states of bliss existence, free of having to even conceive of suffering in themselves, let alone others.

Recollection of the Buddha is a method of having qualities of the Buddha emerge within oneself. What you contemplate, you imitate, so recollecting the Buddha will have one imitate and foster qualities of an enlightened one. This is a good practice of course. However, if you are going to emulate the qualities of a Buddha, then you should understand that Buddhas don't escape into some realm of paradise and bliss. They remain amongst sentient beings as they consider as themselves all sentient beings.

In other words, recollection and emulation of the Buddha would mean facing suffering and conquering it rather than praying to be able to escape into some realm "out there" where minimal suffering exists.

I see where you're coming from, but I think you underplay the immanent effects and experiences which pure land practitioners may embody and bring into this world.

I think there's something in your argument that on the level of intention, a pure land practice may not be as directly engaged in the development of bodhicitta, because the aspiration is for personal release from the sufferings of this world.

However, I think it is worth considering that intense, lifelong contemplation on the Buddha Amitabha is likely to generate deeply compassionate states of mind - because he is, after all, the Buddha of compassion.

So, you talk about this a little with reference to the qualities which emerge by recollecting a Buddha - but don't account for the specifically compassionate qualities which emerge by specifically recollecting that Buddha.

[Indrajala]

I think there's something in your argument that on the level of intention, a pure land practice may not be as directly engaged in the development of bodhicitta, because the aspiration is for personal release from the sufferings of this world.

This is why I think Pure Land Buddhism is more Hīnayāna than Mahayāna. It is about personal salvation and being saved by someone or something else rather than one's own efforts, i.e., liberation.

However, I think it is worth considering that intense, lifelong contemplation on the Buddha Amitabha is likely to generate deeply compassionate states of mind - because he is, after all, the Buddha of compassion.

Maybe, maybe not. The whole purpose of the practice is to be saved by Amitabha, not achieve immediate liberation for oneself and then be in an optimal position to aid others. In the end the practitioner is seeking rebirth in a pure land, not to engage in genuine bodhisattva activities.

So, you talk about this a little with reference to the qualities which emerge by recollecting a Buddha - but don't account for the specifically compassionate qualities which emerge by specifically recollecting that Buddha.

Again, to what extend will those qualities really develop if you are just praying for and dreaming about rebirth in what is really a paradise painted as largely free of suffering?

It really is best to deal with the reality of your current life rather than trying to escape it.

[Mr. G]

Hi Huseng,

It will not lead to liberation in this life.

No, it won't, however Japanese Pure Land teachers Honen, Shinran and Ippen believed one could attain the stage of non-retrogression in this life. There were hints from Chinese Pure Land masters that they believed this as well (if not full enlightenment). And of course Amitabha practices in different schools of Tantra and Dzogchen believe that one can achieve liberation in this life.

However as you know, any Mahayana school of thought that was pre-tantric, has controversies on whether liberation is possible in this life.

For some I suppose reassurances of a rebirth in a pure land is something akin to liberation as it might erase fears of what will come post-mortem, but in my humble opinion that is a huge gamble.

In a sense, all practices are a gamble of some sort or another.

You could just as well live a life of evil and escape the consequences of it by aspiring for rebirth in a Pure Land. This is what Shinran suggested: even evil people can achieve rebirth in the Pure Land.

In the Tannisho, Shinran writes:

"Even an evil person attains birth, so it goes without saying that a good person will."

This is really stating that Amitabha made vows to assist in saving all people - no one is left out. As the serial murderer Angulimala was helped to liberation by Shakyamuni, Amitabha also does not leave anyone out. Shinran did not advocate people to do as they wished, and even scolded people when he wrote:

"Do not take a liking to poison just because there is an antidote."

For bodhisattva aspirants it is best to aspire to tough it out in the rough and tumble world, and purify one's mind while actively attaining true compassion owing to the horrid condition of our world. This kind of thing is discussed in many Mahāyāna scriptures. In some realms it is quite easy and suffering is much less than here, but the problem is that under such conditions you don't generate compassion. Wisdom perhaps, but not compassion, and thus the bodhisattva path is much more difficult. It is the horrors and hardships with which bodhisattvas come to realize compassion first-hand.

It really is best to deal with the reality of your current life rather than trying to escape it.

I disagree here. Pure Land practitioners in both Chinese and Japanese traditions do bang it out in samsara just as well as any other practitioner. Ippen after doing years of retreat went to spread his teachings carrying nothing but 10 items with him and walking to every county in Japan. Honen and Shinran when they were both exiled, also taught the poor and downtrodden. And there are countless stories of Chinese Patriarchs who do retreat and then come back to teach laypeople.

This is why Pure Land Buddhism strikes me as escapism. You read the descriptions of what people hope to experience after death, and it is quite divorced from the reality of our ordinary world. It might sound appealing -- a land of gems and beauty, free of all physical hardships, but there is scarce reason in such circumstances to really worry about anyone or anything in a tangible way, so generation of compassion will be stalled. The same question is raised in regards to deities residing in states of bliss existence, free of having to even conceive of suffering in themselves, let alone others.

This is why I think Pure Land Buddhism is more Hīnayāna than Mahayāna. It is about personal salvation and being saved by someone or something else rather than one's own efforts, i.e., liberation.

I understand what you're saying, however you're leaving out the point that the idea of going to the Pure Land was to either immediately become a Buddha as Shinran thought, or that the Pure Land was a sort of staging area where one would continue on the Dharma path. Either way though, the idea was to become a Buddha to assist all sentient beings afterwards. It wasn't considered a place to chill out and rest.

The descriptions of the Pure Land to me are not something I take as being literal down to the letter. The first way I think of it is as a provisional teaching to motivate pracititioners. Secondly, when I read descriptions like "birds singing Dharma" I think of it as having my sense organs exposed to Dharma - My eyes reading sutras, my ears listening to a Dharma lecture, My nose smelling incense...etc. It's a way of expressing the inconceivable (Amitabha's Pure Land) with the best descriptive terms that had weight back then.

[tobes]

I think there's something in your argument that on the level of intention, a pure land practice may not be as directly engaged in the development of bodhicitta, because the aspiration is for personal release from the sufferings of this world.

This is why I think Pure Land Buddhism is more Hīnayāna than Mahayāna. It is about personal salvation and being saved by someone or something else rather than one's own efforts, i.e., liberation.

However, I think it is worth considering that intense, lifelong contemplation on the Buddha Amitabha is likely to generate deeply compassionate states of mind - because he is, after all, the Buddha of compassion.

Maybe, maybe not. The whole purpose of the practice is to be saved by Amitabha, not achieve immediate liberation for oneself and then be in an optimal position to aid others. In the end the practitioner is seeking rebirth in a pure land, not to engage in genuine bodhisattva activities.

So, you talk about this a little with reference to the qualities which emerge by recollecting a Buddha - but don't account for the specifically compassionate qualities which emerge by specifically recollecting that Buddha.

Again, to what extend will those qualities really develop if you are just praying for and dreaming about rebirth in what is really a paradise painted as largely free of suffering?

It really is best to deal with the reality of your current life rather than trying to escape it.

Right, again I think you're focusing too exclusively on intention - which is admittedly very important - and not sufficiently on the possibility of compassionate qualities emerging (as a result of practice) in the immanence of this world.

It would be good to hear what some Pure Land practitioners have to say on the matter.

[ronnewmexico]

I will of course not speak for pure land or any other form of buddhism.

Speaking for myself I say firmly this, ...any pure land practice performed as intended and with sufficient in the way of accomplishment to actually put one in such places as described.....it is that practice of necessity it is displaying perfect compassion. Of course if one is to just chant this or that visualize this or that pray this or that and do not anything else,wanting mostly just to get somewhere...it is in the perfection of those things comes the understanding of those things and with them a understanding and expression of perfect compassion.

It cannot be accomplished in any other manner.

Faulted practices and faulted conceptions of where one is going and to what aim...abound in error in any form of buddhism.
Suchly this is as any other form means to a end the end always being compassion...greater lesser...those conceptual in origin and nature.

It is not that one is put anywhere but that ones mind fits a place....that place leading to full enlightenment....why then reach for fulll enlightenement and not just a pleasent place? NO it is not that but full enlightenment that is endeavored. That always by its defintiion for other not I.
That is my personal opinion.

I am tending to think this may be the most difficult of practices to perform to sufficiency, but am not firm in that particular opinion, as it is not of my concern to determine such things. That things be equal of not..... that is part of my concern in things.
I find this the same as any other, not better nor worse.

[Mr. G]

It would be good to hear what some Pure Land practitioners have to say on the matter.

Here's one account:

From the article "Yuan Hongdao and the Xifang helun: Pure Land Theology in the Late Ming Dynasty" by Charles Jones. It tells the story of when the scholar Yong Hongdao went to visit the eighth patriarch of the Pure Land Tradition, Yunqi Zhuhong (1535-1615):

In 1597, on a pleasure expedition to the south with his friend Tao Wanglin, Yuan went to the Yunqifa Temple under Five Cloud Mountain (Wuyun shan), where he spent time with Zhuhong. In his travel notes, he gave this assessment of Zhuhong's teaching:

[Master] Lianchi (Zhuhong) keeps the sila and vinaya meticulously, and although one could not say that he is most profound in the Way, neither is he lacking in what he has seen. As for his sole advocacy of the dharma-gate of nianfo, it is very direct, fast, and simple. Within those six words (Na-mo A-mi-tuo-fo), one turns heaven and earth. Why work so hard, rubbing one's eyes and moving even more towards crazy interpretations? Such being the case, one could say that Lianchi is "one without enlightenment", but this "one without enlightenment" is a real Amitabha; please go quickly to see him.

[ronnewmexico]

I think the problem may be this common one..

Many speak of the issue, but know nothing
Some know the issue to totality, but many of those rarely speak of it .
Those that know the issue to totality and speak of the issue are very rare.

Mostly it is those that interpret or determine what those who may know things.... are what they are...and being as we are... they may be faulted a bit in their sayings. So I think it is easily misunderstood and hence some opinions may be faulted on that thing more than other things.

But that happening is also common.
Even this quote...is of about another.