A "Christology" of Amida Buddha

[steveb1]

Scouting around here, I have run into an issue that is confusing me, and would ask for any help you might care to give

Basically it concerns the seemingly contrary propositions:

On the one hand, we hear:

1. In an unnamed time and place, a king abandoned his throne on a quest for truth. "On the road", he became the Monk Dharmakara. After consulting with a great Buddha, Monk Dharmakara became a Bodhisattva who spent eons in distilling the very best of all the Buddha worlds and incorporating them into his Pure Land. His 18th or Primal Vow promised Pure Land entry for all adherents. Thus, the unnamed king who became Monk Dharmakara finally became Amida Buddha.
This seems to be a story about the transformation of a human being into a Bodhisattva and a Buddha.

But on the other hand, we hear:

2. Amida Buddha is said to be a primordial, eternal Buddha, a "Buddha of Buddhas", quite unrelated to human quests for Buddhahood, such as the one undertaken by Monk Dharmakara.
This seems to be a story about the "incarnation" or "expression" of an eternal Buddha manifesting in a human being.

You can see my problem. It's similar to the Christian christological issue: was Jesus a man who became "enlightened" through righteousness, and various signs of his divine "Father's" approval; OR - was Jesus divine from the beginning - by nature? Did God "enter" Jesus from outside through a descent of the Holy Spirit, or was Jesus God incarnate from the beginning?

Was Amida simply the future destiny of the man Dharmakara who became Buddha via his Bodhisattva Vow(s) and his many salvific activities; OR - was Dharmakara never really a human being, but from the beginning an "incarnation" or expression of the primordial Buddha called "Amida"?


Can anyone tell me if I've understood correctly both points 1. and 2. above?
And then can you tell me if my issue between an "earned Buddhahood" by Monk Dharmakara vs. a pre-existent "Buddhahood by nature/incarnation" is a religious issue in Shin? And if so, how is it resolved?

Thanks in advance for any clarifications

[PadmaVonSamba]

Buddhahood isn't the acquisition of something we don't already have. It is the perfect removal of "obscurations" to the realization of that enlightenment.

[Astus]

The issue has been resolved by the doctrine of the three bodies (trikaya) long ago.

[steveb1]

The issue has been resolved by the doctrine of the three bodies (trikaya) long ago.

Could you please point me to a written source or url that would clarify how the trikaya applies to the apparent "double' nature of Amida, i.e., Amida as the outcome of the human being, Monk Dharmakara's, efforts and Amida as an eternal, "primordial" Buddha? For me, finding a specifically Shin application, if one exists, of the trikaya to Dharmakara and primal Amida would be especially helpful

[gingercatni]

The issue has been resolved by the doctrine of the three bodies (trikaya) long ago.

Could you please point me to a written source or url that would clarify how the trikaya applies to the apparent "double' nature of Amida, i.e., Amida as the outcome of the human being, Monk Dharmakara's, efforts and Amida as an eternal, "primordial" Buddha? For me, finding a specifically Shin application, if one exists, of the trikaya to Dharmakara and primal Amida would be especially helpful

You really don't need any links at all. Amitabha is real, what you seem to be searching for is validation of this and no one even myself can give you this. The Buddha expounded the sutra's we take them as the truth, we have faith in them. I assume like me you come from a christian background, I understand how hard it is to accept Buddhist teachings, as one has to dispose of the christian influence. But Amitabha is real, your search will only distract you. Read the sutras the answers are there, live in the Dharma and your faith will strengthen and peace will come too. Namo Amitabha!

[steveb1]

Thank you for your reply, but my questions are not coming from doubt, but rather from curiosity and enthusiasm. It is one thing to experience Amida via Shinjin and another to work that experience into a sound intellectual and philosophical framework. Both ought to go together. After all, perhaps the greatest Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna, was also a Pure Land devotee, so faith and philosophy do not necessarily conflict. Moreover, we recall Shinran's deeply philosophical handling of scripture in the light of Amida's Working. If one is subjectively "straight" in his/her faith, yet stumbles when mentally contemplating - and describing to others - Amida's Working, there is obviously a wrinkle that should be ironed out.

And the question I am asking is very basic and comes from the Shin scriptures, the Masters' letters and the general tradition. It is a question that, were it possible, I would bring to Shinran and/or Rennyo. The question is neither insulting nor frivolous. It's simplicity itself:

Was Dharmakara a man who, via mighty efforts, became Amida Buddha;

- OR -

Is Amida a pre-human (therefore pre-Dharmakara) primordial Buddha who "incarnated" in or in some other way "subsumed" Dharmakara into Amida's primal Buddhahood?

[sinweiy]

All Buddhas have a 'source' 本 (Noumenon) and a 'trace' 迹 (phenomenon). 'Source' refer to the very first time the Buddha attain Buddhahood. While 'Trace' refer to manifestation in order to liberate sentient beings. Like Shakaymuni Buddha, who came to Earth to attain Buddhahood 3000 years ago is not His 'Source' but 'Trace' as stated in Lotus Sutra. Shakaymuni Buddha already attain Buddhahood long long time ago. Brahma Net sutra state that this was Shakaymuni Buddha's 8000 times displaying Enlightenment. So Shakaymuni's 'Source' is "inconceivable", it cannot be guessed/said when. Same goes for Amitabha Buddha. So is Amitabha Buddha in Pureland a 'source' or a 'trace'? Know that Amitabha is also a manifested Buddha ie 'Trace'(phenomenon) in Ultimate Bliss!! If we want to trace the 'Source' of Amitabha. Lotus Sutra had said that Amitabha and Shakaymuni used to be student;friends;brother together in inconceivable time back! If Shakaymuni's 'Source' is inconceivable, so is Amitabha. All is but manifestated 'Trace'. There can be no Parinirvana, in the perspective of 'Source'. So when Amitabha were to Parinirvana, that's just His manifested Body. And in order to manifested such a long time makes Amitabha's power of vow unbelievable & rare, compare to Shakaymuni's 80 years. If we people were to go to Amitabha's Pureland to cultivate and attain Buddhahood, that's our 'Source'. In other word Amitabha's 'Trace' help us to create our 'Source'. And if we were then to manifest in other world system to display Enlightenment, that's our 'Trace'.
Amitabha attain Buddhahood 10 Mahakalpas ago is a 'Trace'(phenomenon). 'Trace' can be said using the 3 bodies.

The very first time one attained Buddhahood, one achieved the three bodies.
Amitabha is an Emanation body; the corresponding Enjoyment body is Amitayus, "infinite life"-propitiated for longevity; the Dharma body is Ananta-prabha, "boundless illumination."

[steveb1]

sinweiy,

Thank you for this information, it really gives me something to research, this interesting "Trace" and "Source" relationship looks like it just may hold the answers.

Thanks again for your help

[PadmaVonSamba]

According to the glossary section of ShinShu Setien (p.575)
"Dharmakara was Amida Buddha who incarnated Himself as a Bodhisattva"
perhaps this will be useful information as well.
.
.
.

[steveb1]

According to the glossary section of ShinShu Setien (p.575)
"Dharmakara was Amida Buddha who incarnated Himself as a Bodhisattva"
perhaps this will be useful information as well.
.
.
.

Thank you - yes, that's very interesting and I'll look into it

[sinweiy]

this might be Insightful:

There is a passage from the Avatamsaka Sutra (Book5,9.Gatha)

Some lands have a Buddha
And some land do not.
Some have just one Buddha
And some have countless Buddhas.

If a land has no Buddha,
Then a Buddha from another world
Will mistically appear there
To manifest the works of Buddhas-

Our world, the Southern Jambudvipa was without a Buddha,so Shakyamuni mistically appeared here, to teach us the activity of Amida Buddha. He Did not intended to teach a supramundane doctrine, only wanted to reveal the 48 vows of Amitabha, especially of his 18.th vow. In this vow Amida promised us, that whoever think of Him, or utter His Name, with faith that person in the end of the life will enter in His Paradise, moreover He will appear at his deathbed,and personally escort him to the Pure Land.
Amitabha is the primordial Buddha,and His Land is out of the Samsara.
Shakyamuni many times called the Nirvana as Amita. This Land is an environmental appearence of Nirvana. As Vasubandhu wrote in the Jodoron:

"The adornaments of the Land of Amitayus Buddha are phenomenal
aspects of a wondreous realm wich has arisen from the utmost reality."

Amida Buddha incarnated Himself as Dharmakara Bodhisattva in order to
create the Pure Land. His Name has three meaning:

1."The letter "A" of the Dharma" (The A is the symbol of the Pure
Land and Amitabha)
2."The essential mode of Dharma activity.
3."Dharma Tresury".

Amitabha, the Dharma Treasury (That is, Dharmakara) with essential
mode of Dharma-activity, created the Pure Land.

The Dharma Tresure has four parts: Nitya (permanence)
Sukha (blessing) Atman (true self) Subha (purity)

They are called the Four Gunaparamita, and are in contrast to the Trilakshana, wich is: Anitya (Impermanence), Dukha(suffering),Anatman (no-self),
as well as to Asubha(impurity).

So Dharmakara Bodhisattva inkarnated from Dharmakaya Amitabha, (Lokanatha Amitabha, or Lokesvararaja,also known in His secret Name as HRIH) created the Pure Land and become Samboghakaya Amitabha. His emanation (Nirmanakaya Amitabha) appeared in our world as Shakyamuni Buddha.NAMUAMIDABUTSU --Rev.Anraku

[steveb1]

Sinweiy, again, thank you for this information, it's deep and complex, but utterly fascinating and helpful in helping me to picture the myriad ways that Amida works for us

Gassho,

steveb1

[Blue Garuda]

'Primordial' and 'eternal' are contradictory.

You cannot have a 'first' in something beginningless and endless.

[PadmaVonSamba]

'Primordial' and 'eternal' are contradictory.

You cannot have a 'first' in something beginningless and endless.

If "eternal" is regarded as a prerequisite for any subsequent considerations, then in that sense it comes first. It provides the greater context in which all other considerations arise.

So, "beginninglessness" and "endlessness" , or you could say "infinite" itself is first. It underlies everything else. Thus, to refer to the infinite Buddha, "Amitabha" as primordial, in this context, is not contradictory. If we are discussing chronological time, then yes, you are right. But Chronological time is only something that has been imagined by a limited imagination. There are not really any days or hours or kalpas, and no past or future, except in the relative sense. Even a "light year" only occurs as a comparison to the movement of the Earth around the Sun. Really, though, everything is only happening right now, in one infinite, all encompassing now.

Describing Amita as "primordial" and at the same time as "infinite" isn't referring to then and now. It means that the mind of enlightenment is the same regardless of how anyone might ascribe characteristics of "where' or "when" to it. Mind's original nature is infinite. It is the same as Amitabha's. So, primordial is just another word for original.
.
.
.

[Blue Garuda]

'Primordial' and 'eternal' are contradictory.

You cannot have a 'first' in something beginningless and endless.

If "eternal" is regarded as a prerequisite for any subsequent considerations, then in that sense it comes first. It provides the greater context in which all other considerations arise.

So, "beginninglessness" and "endlessness" , or you could say "infinite" itself is first. It underlies everything else. Thus, to refer to the infinite Buddha, "Amitabha" as primordial, in this context, is not contradictory. If we are discussing chronological time, then yes, you are right. But Chronological time is only something that has been imagined by a limited imagination. There are not really any days or hours or kalpas, and no past or future, except in the relative sense. Even a "light year" only occurs as a comparison to the movement of the Earth around the Sun. Really, though, everything is only happening right now, in one infinite, all encompassing now.

Describing Amita as "primordial" and at the same time as "infinite" isn't referring to then and now. It means that the mind of enlightenment is the same regardless of how anyone might ascribe characteristics of "where' or "when" to it. Mind's original nature is infinite. It is the same as Amitabha's. So, primordial is just another word for original.
.
.
.

If a Buddha is 'infinite', even if we think outside space and time then 'primordial' still makes no sense as it means the 'first', which can only relate to time, as does 'original', the origin. Check out what the words mean. Nothing in this context can be 'primordial'. I'd stick with 'eternal'.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If a Buddha is 'infinite', even if we think outside space and time then 'primordial' still makes no sense as it means the 'first', which can only relate to time, as does 'original', the origin. Check out what the words mean. Nothing in this context can be 'primordial'. I'd stick with 'eternal'.

"original" and "primordial" meaning unobscured.
It is a misuse of the word, because of course, "prima" means first and "ordinal" refers to sequence.
So, the word refers to chronological events.

But the word is simply being borrowed to convey the idea of mind unobstructed because when you remove the obstructions, that is what you get, just as when you wipe the dirt off a mirror you get a clean mirror, because the clean mirror was there before the dirt was there.

So, a word which is generally used to describe chronological events is being used to describe something that isn't chronological in nature, because it makes it easier for some people to grasp the idea of unobstructed awareness that way.

I don't think that the implication is that first there wasn't any confusion, and then later there was.
"Amitabha is the primordial Buddha" means that when you remove the things which obstruct the mind's clarity (some people would say mind's original clarity) which is empty and luminous, then the mind is awakened and is the same as Amitabha.
.
.
.

[Blue Garuda]

If a Buddha is 'infinite', even if we think outside space and time then 'primordial' still makes no sense as it means the 'first', which can only relate to time, as does 'original', the origin. Check out what the words mean. Nothing in this context can be 'primordial'. I'd stick with 'eternal'.

"original" and "primordial" meaning unobscured.
It is a misuse of the word, because of course, "prima" means first and "ordinal" refers to sequence.
So, the word refers to chronological events.

But the word is simply being borrowed to convey the idea of mind unobstructed because when you remove the obstructions, that is what you get, just as when you wipe the dirt off a mirror you get a clean mirror, because the clean mirror was there before the dirt was there.

So, a word which is generally used to describe chronological events is being used to describe something that isn't chronological in nature, because it makes it easier for some people to grasp the idea of unobstructed awareness that way.

I don't think that the implication is that first there wasn't any confusion, and then later there was.
"Amitabha is the primordial Buddha" means that when you remove the things which obstruct the mind's clarity (some people would say mind's original clarity) which is empty and luminous, then the mind is awakened and is the same as Amitabha.
.
.
.

If the mirror was there before the dirt, which I would say was a dodgy premise, you are still using chronology in 'before'.

if our mind is eternal and the mind of Amitabha is also eternal then you could equally say that Amitabha's mind is the same as our own - the point of reference is irrelevant. As all Buddhas are awakened and eternal, and have unobstructed awareness, why place Amitabha at the centre of the theory?

[PadmaVonSamba]

As all Buddhas are awakened and eternal, and have unobstructed awareness, why place Amitabha at the centre of the theory?

Oh, I see what you are getting at.
There isn't any reason for doing that, it's just what Pure Land Buddhists do.

Depending on your focus, you can put any Buddha in the center of your mandala.

It is popularly held among Pure land Buddhists that Sakyamuni's sole reason for appearing in this world was to deliver the Amitabha Sutra. I am not saying that I share that opinion, but if the question is why do some PureLand Buddhists regard Amitabha first in some chronological way, that might give you some aspect of the answer.

Pure Land Buddhism can be regarded on many levels, literally, metaphorically, and it is often stressed that whatever way works for its adherents is accurate one way or another. So, a chronological understanding is not outside the range of accurate interpretation, although technically speaking it may not make literal sense.
.
.
.

[Blue Garuda]

As all Buddhas are awakened and eternal, and have unobstructed awareness, why place Amitabha at the centre of the theory?

Oh, I see what you are getting at.
There isn't any reason for doing that, it's just what Pure Land Buddhists do.

Depending on your focus, you can put any Buddha in the center of your mandala.
There are 5 Buddha families.
And the neighbors
and the neighbors pets.

.
.
.

Ah, thanks.

Yes, I was assuming you were placing him as 'prime' amongst all Buddhas in terms of the most enlightened or (in using chronology earlier) the first. That's fine for Pure Land of course, but as you say, there is no difference - a Buddha is a Buddha and the differences lie in our own minds as to which seem most suitable in different circumstances.

[Nighthawk]

Scouting around here, I have run into an issue that is confusing me, and would ask for any help you might care to give

Basically it concerns the seemingly contrary propositions:

On the one hand, we hear:

1. In an unnamed time and place, a king abandoned his throne on a quest for truth. "On the road", he became the Monk Dharmakara. After consulting with a great Buddha, Monk Dharmakara became a Bodhisattva who spent eons in distilling the very best of all the Buddha worlds and incorporating them into his Pure Land. His 18th or Primal Vow promised Pure Land entry for all adherents. Thus, the unnamed king who became Monk Dharmakara finally became Amida Buddha.
This seems to be a story about the transformation of a human being into a Bodhisattva and a Buddha.

But on the other hand, we hear:

2. Amida Buddha is said to be a primordial, eternal Buddha, a "Buddha of Buddhas", quite unrelated to human quests for Buddhahood, such as the one undertaken by Monk Dharmakara.
This seems to be a story about the "incarnation" or "expression" of an eternal Buddha manifesting in a human being.

You can see my problem. It's similar to the Christian christological issue: was Jesus a man who became "enlightened" through righteousness, and various signs of his divine "Father's" approval; OR - was Jesus divine from the beginning - by nature? Did God "enter" Jesus from outside through a descent of the Holy Spirit, or was Jesus God incarnate from the beginning?

Was Amida simply the future destiny of the man Dharmakara who became Buddha via his Bodhisattva Vow(s) and his many salvific activities; OR - was Dharmakara never really a human being, but from the beginning an "incarnation" or expression of the primordial Buddha called "Amida"?


Can anyone tell me if I've understood correctly both points 1. and 2. above?
And then can you tell me if my issue between an "earned Buddhahood" by Monk Dharmakara vs. a pre-existent "Buddhahood by nature/incarnation" is a religious issue in Shin? And if so, how is it resolved?

Thanks in advance for any clarifications

According from the writings of Shinran, yes Dharmakara was a man who became a Buddha. This is also verified by the 7 masters.