Skepticism of Pure Land among Mahayana adherents

[haha]

The DSBC is Vaidya's. As I said, the prose is largely the same, Kumarajiva's verse is similar but comes across as a bit different. I think that whole passage is probably largely the same as the Sanskrit we have today. There are definitely parts of the Sanskrit that are entirely different today than whatever Kumarajiva was looking at.

As for "asti," there is not really a word for the English "yes" in Sanskrit or Buddhist Chinese. The closest would be something like "evam asti," or "thus it is." The 有 functions just like the asti in the Sanskrit I quoted, "there is a..." It could never be "yes." The BDK translation is just so unreliable that nobody should be referring to it.

Indeed, different version.

I have heard that different Sanskrit scholars would give different meaning to same passage; one factor is that earlier model of writing which one can see in old Sanskrit manuscripts. There are other factors, too.


Here is the meaning from V S Apte’s dictionary.

4) अस्ति asti (p. 287)
अस्ति asti ind. [अस्-शतिप्] 1 Being, existent, present; as in अस्तिक्षीरा, ˚कायः -2 Often used at the commencement of a tale or narrative in the sense of 'so it is', 'there', or merely as an expletive; अस्ति सिंहः प्रतिवसति स्म

If one gives meaning to asti as “so it is”, one may read the narrative differently.

Even after reading whole naga princess story, one might say “yes it is” at the end.

In one version, “Thereupon Bodhisattva Prajñākūṭa spoke these verses in praise.” It might mean he did not have doubt and praised the Manjusri. He knew Manjusri was leading those being by expounding the essential character of dharmas. He was already accepting Manjusri causing them to quickly attain enlightenment. And at the end, he and Sariputra accepted and believed in silence; even assembly accepted it.

In another version, “Then the bodhisattva Prajñākūṭa asked Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta questions by chanting these verses”. It might mean he had doubt and he asked the question. He was asking about “through whose power”, “what sutra”, and “what dharma”. And at the end, he and Sariputra fell silent.

Those three questions were already answered in praise of earlier version. Those versions have dramatic difference. Even though one may think one is reading same sutra, but one could have very different understanding.



The meaning of sukhavati intended by some vajrayana literature is very different.

[Zhen Li]

I have heard that different Sanskrit scholars would give different meaning to same passage; one factor is that earlier model of writing which one can see in old Sanskrit manuscripts. There are other factors, too.

You can definitely translate the same line in a variety of ways. In fact, interpolation in translation is one thing, but sometimes translators add words to make things sound more fluent in English. Like you say, adding "yes there is" at the end could be something a translator adds to make it sound like normal English. Entirely literal translations can be very difficult for non-specialists to read.

Here is the meaning from V S Apte’s dictionary.

Although the indeclinable asti is usually only seen in narrative literature like the Pāñcatantra or Kathāsaritsāgara, we do see it in Buddhist narrative literature too, like the Mahāvastu or Divyāvadāna. I still think this is just the finite verb, which is also how Kumarajiva evidently understood it.

[Aemilius]

The way I understand it is once someone surpassed consciousness (with the power of Buddhas (Amitabha, Vairocana, etc), they totally realize emptiness or Buddha nature. This is not equivalent to a full Buddha. They’ll continue teachings from Buddhas to further advance their career. Because there isn’t rainbows or nothing in there in what they have realized. This is very important to understand. Perhaps this is where the issue of what Zhen Li said ‘sundry practice.’ Versus the Pure Land Palace of Amitabha.

Zhiyi suggests that once one merely hears of Buddhanature - could be from a Buddha, or a teacher, or reading it in a text - one irreversibly enters the path. This is based on the Avatamsaka, Prajnaparamita and Lotus Sutras, among others. At that point one is still far from full blown buddhahood, but they are indelibly on the continuum. Zhiyi is arguably relevant here because the the major Japanese Pure Land schools are splinters from Tendai which claims lineage to Zhiyi.

Pureland schools themselves don't see it that way:

"Transmission and dissemination of the Pure Land teaching from India to China

The Pure Land sutras were later transmitted to China and translated into Chinese. In the Jin dynasty, some masters engaged in the practice of self-powered Amitabha-contemplation rather than the practice of Name-recitation in other-power, which is in accordance with the Fundamental Vow. Although they were “pioneering practitioners” of the Pure Land teaching, these masters are not regarded as members of the Pure Land school’s lineage—signified by the lifeline of the Pure Land teaching: Amitabha’s 18th Vow, the great vow of Amitabha’s deliverance.

Not until Master Tanluan (476–542) of the Northern Wei dynasty, also known as “the Divine Luan,” was the tradition of Nagarjuna Bodhisattva and Vasubandhu Bodhisattva restored with Tanluan’s composition Commentary on the Treatise on Rebirth.

Master Tanluan revealed the hidden meaning of the “Treatise on Rebirth in the Pure Land,” and explicated such concepts as the “Difficult Practice” and the “Easy Practice” as the “Self-Power Teaching” and the “Other-Power Teaching” respectively, with the latter stemming from Amitabha’s 18th Vow. He also declared that Amitabha’s Name was actually the body and substance of the three Pure Land sutras.

The highly virtuous and influential Master Daochuo (562–645) of the Sui-Tang period was inspired after reading Master Tanluan’s works. He followed in Master Tanluan’s footsteps and composed the Collection on Peace and Joy, which clarified the differences between the “Sacred Path Teaching” and the “Pure Land Teaching.”

Master Daochuo encouraged people, particularly laypeople, to seek rebirth in Amitabha’s Pure Land through the simple and easy practice of Amitabha-recitation, not necessarily to be practiced in temples, but in their daily lives. He encouraged practitioners to use beads and other counting devices in their recitation practice. Master Daochuo was, in turn, followed by his illustrious disciple Master Shandao (613–81) of the Tang dynasty."

Master Shandao was the de facto founder of the Pure Land school of China

During the golden age of Chinese Buddhism in the early Tang dynasty, Master Shandao wrote the Five Works in Nine Fascicles, consisting of:
(1) Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra: 4 fascicles
(2) Dharma School of Contemplation and Recitation: 1 fascicle
(3) In Praise of Dharma Practices: 2 fascicles
(4) In Praise of the Rites of Rebirth: 1 fascicle
(5) In Praise of Pratyutpanna (“In the Presence of the Buddhas”): 1 fascicle

These writings definitively established a comprehensive system of teaching and practice in the Pure Land tradition. Because of this, Pure Land emerged as an independent school—not just a mode of practice—and recitation of Amitabha’s name was thenceforth enshrined as the “karma of assurance” of rebirth, because it accords with the Fundamental Vow.

Master Shandao is widely regarded as an incarnation of Amitabha Buddha, and his Pure Land teaching is regarded as the true words spoken by Amitabha Buddha.

The transmission/dissemination of the Pure Land teaching from China to Japan

The lineage continued with Master Honen (1133–1211) of Japan. Basing his teachings on the thoughts of Master Shandao, he composed the Collection on Choosing Buddha-Recitation According to the Fundamental Vow and founded the Pure Land school of Japan."

https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/t ... r-shandao/

[FiveSkandhas]

南無阿弥陀仏