Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Pure Land and Christianity

edited May 2010 in Buddhism Today
Can somebody point out the difference between the two?

I see only similiarities, critical components for both:

1) An abode of peace, love and rest after passing from this life
2) Faith and belief in that heavenly realm
3) A "saviour" kind of belief system
4) A surrendering to a higher or "other" power

Can someone help me, I am confused. :(

Comments

  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hi Jingnen, welcome to the forum,

    From my understanding of Pure Land buddhism;
    1) The Pure Land is different than the christian idea of heaven. The Pure Land is an abode created by Amida Buddha to allow people a place to learn dharma with little, or no obstructions. It is imperminant and so will not last forever. Your time spent there will not be forever. And simply being in the Pure Land will not guarentee enlightenment. You still have to do the leg work! :p
    Some schools of Buddhism believe that the Pure Land is possible right here right now and is a mental state of being, rather than an actual place.
    2) Many schools of Pure Land do state that faith is important. Most religions do.
    3) Amida Buddha is not a saviour in the christian sense. He is not a God, he cannot rid you of your karma, and he cannot magically make you enlightened.
    4) Not so much "surrender", because Amida cannot control you or your destiny.

    That being said, this is only my understanding. I know many Pure Land buddhists who see Pure Land buddhism much like Christianity and they even talk about faith, saviour, and surrendering to Amida. This is not how I see it or practice it. :)

    Nios.
    matthewmartinherberto
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    the teaching of pure land is baically the response of converting the people in eastern Persian before the CE , who's native religion/cult was about a Sun god ( infinite light - amita abha ) and their original concepts of paradise ( pairi.daêza in Avestan langauge ) after death. Likelihood the Abrahmic faiths in the latter age also borrowed the similar line of concepts and associated it to the Garden of Eden, and evolves to the concepts of heaven after death
    matthewmartinherberto
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Interesting Ansanna. Got any references?
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Nios, you may search in " Amita Abha, Amita-Ayus, Amitayus, Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus, Zurvan Akarana,Zervan Akarana ' for ancient Perian/Iranian history" for god of infite time and infite light, or the origin of the word 'paradise'
  • edited March 2010
    that is interesting, isn't pure land east asian?
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    that is interesting, isn't pure land east asian?
    the source of this teaching is in it's Mahayana sutras that originated in India ( or greater part of India , includes western part of middle east, and central asia ) , such sutras are being translated into east asian language.

    Such teaching by itselfs was not much practiced in ancient India ( but there are also relic of Amita buddhas found in India, and mentioned in other scriptures and commentaries )

    The pure land school found in east asia was started by the founding monks that emphasis on this particular group of sutras to suit the condition of the people at their time ( continue unrest/wars situation in the land and the low educational level of the masses etc )


    <!-- / message -->
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited March 2010
    that is interesting, isn't pure land east asian?
    The sutras that Pure Land is based on were written in India. However, I can't find any references that link Amitabha with Persian deities. The only link I can find is that Sanskrit and ancient Persian are related languages; i.e. they have many similar words. Also, it's not clear to me what relevance the etymology of the English word "paradise" has to religious beliefs that originated in a time and place where no one spoke English.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    ansanna wrote: »
    Nios, you may search in " Amita Abha, Amita-Ayus, Amitayus, Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus, Zurvan Akarana,Zervan Akarana ' for ancient Perian/Iranian history" for god of infite time and infite light, or the origin of the word 'paradise'

    I've searched those and I don't come up with anything (or at least nothing credible). Do you have any links to books, studies etc etc? I'd be very interested.

    Thank you :)
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    The word "paradise" entered English from the French paradis, inherited from the Latin paradisus, from Greek parádeisos (παράδεισος), and ultimately from an Old Iranian root, attested in Avestan as pairi.daêza-.<SUP id=cite_ref-New_Oxford_0-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP> The literal meaning of this Eastern Old Iranian language word is "walled (enclosure)",<SUP id=cite_ref-New_Oxford_0-1 class=reference>[1]</SUP> from pairi- "around" + -diz "to create, make". The word is not attested in other Old Iranian languages (these may however be hypothetically reconstructed, for example as Old Persian *paridayda-).
    By the 6th/5th century BCE, the Old Iranian word had been adopted as Akkadian pardesu and Elamite partetas "domain". It subsequently came to indicate walled estates, especially the carefully tended royal parks and menageries. The term eventually appeared in Greek as ho parádeisos "park for animals" in the Anabasis of the early 4th century BCE Athenian gentleman-scholar Xenophon. Aramaic pardaysa similarly reflects "royal park".
    Hebrew pardes appears thrice in the Tanakh; in the Song of Solomon 4:13, Ecclesiastes 2:5 and Nehemiah 2:8. In those contexts it could be interpreted as a park, a garden or an orchard. In the 3rd-1st century BCE Septuagint, Greek parádeisos was used to translate both Hebrew pardes and Hebrew gan, "garden": it is from this usage that the use of "paradise" to refer to the Garden of Eden derives. This usage also appears in Arabic firdaws.
    The Zohar<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from February 2010">I][URL="http://newbuddhist.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I</SUP> gives the word a mystical interpretation, and associates it with the four kinds of Biblical exegesis: peshat (literal meaning), remez (allusion), derash (anagogical), and sod (mystic). The initial letters of those four words then form פָּרְדֵּס – p(a)rd(e)s, which was in turn felt to represent the fourfold interpretation of the Torah (in which sod – the mystical interpretation – ranks highest).
    The idea of a walled enclosure was not preserved in most Iranian usage, and generally came to refer to a plantation or other cultivated area, not necessarily walled. For example, the Old Iranian word survives in New Persian pālīz, which denotes a vegetable patch.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2010
    ansanna wrote: »
    the teaching of pure land is baically the response of converting the people in eastern Persian before the CE , who's native religion/cult was about a Sun god ( infinite light - amita abha ) and their original concepts of paradise ( pairi.daêza in Avestan langauge ) after death. Likelihood the Abrahmic faiths in the latter age also borrowed the similar line of concepts and associated it to the Garden of Eden, and evolves to the concepts of heaven after death
    Nios wrote: »
    Interesting Ansanna. Got any references?
    ansanna wrote: »
    Nios, you may search in " Amita Abha, Amita-Ayus, Amitayus, Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus, Zurvan Akarana,Zervan Akarana ' for ancient Perian/Iranian history" for god of infite time and infite light, or the origin of the word 'paradise'

    Just as a polite and courteous gesture, references should always be supplied, as a matter of course, by the person proposing the information.

    ansanna, with such a wealth of information available, perhaps you could, in new circumstances, supply reference points for future and subsequent posters to link to. It's not considered good form to supply information, then suggest to others that they do their own research.
    If information is proposed, it should be backed up, in situ, by that poster.

    many thanks.
    :)
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Federica, well one can find such hard evidences in Iranian & other world museums / libraries of relics/statues of such perian deities Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus ( Lion head and human body ) , etc .
    such information are not widely placed in internet for common people, just to be polite
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Ansanna,

    The only reference I can find to Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus is here; http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xb2BPq8zzXgJ:www.ignca.nic.in/nl002107.htm+Zervan+Akarana-Amita-Ayus&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
    In the article the Z-A-A-A (abrieviated) is not described as a deity, but as infinite time.
    As Edward Conze has stated, this trinity has many counterparts in Iranian religion, i.e. in the Mithra cult, and in Zervanism, a Persian religion which recognized Infinite Time (Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus) as the fundamental of this,


    Do you have a name for the deity you are refering to (lion head human body) other than Zervan Akaran-Amita-Ayus?? Help us out here.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Here I find a link between the word "ayus" (or ayu) and Persia...
    Khoda (Persian) Khvataya, Khvatadha (Avestan) (from khvat self + aya come to be, or dhata creating, law)

    Khvataya is similar to the Sanskrit svata-ayu (self-existing), while khvatadha means self-created. In modern Persian khoda means "God."
    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:rgtLtNxIcmoJ:www.experiencefestival.com/ayus+persian+deity+ayus&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Also found this article linking Japanese religions to Mathraism. I'm not sure how credible it is, I've only just skimmed over it.

    http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/an_introduction_to_the_simorghian_culture_and_mithraism_in_the_east_asia_v2.pdf

    And this article studies the creation of Mithraism, pre-dating Buddhism.

    http://www.shamogoloparvaneh.com/Myth_of_Simorghian_Mithraism_V0B.pdf
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2010
    ansanna wrote: »
    Federica, well one can find such hard evidences in Iranian & other world museums / libraries of relics/statues of such perian deities Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus ( Lion head and human body ) , etc .
    such information are not widely placed in internet for common people, just to be polite

    In that case, it's best to expand on where you get your information from. It helps mould the discussion.
    Often, it's also worth considering prefixing the post with "Thus have I heard"....
    That way, we know it might not be as hard and fast as one might suppose.

    Nios seems to have managed quite well to find a more than adequate number of sources for what he is expressing....

    It's all very well telling someone in short, to "look it up for yourself" but it's not always helpful.
    And that's a reminder to all.
    Thank you.
    Ok, carry on.

    :)
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Federica, well, even in the writings of modern Buddhist masters from many traditions, they actually acknowledge this part of the history that the scholars have pointed to.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Ansanna,

    I'm really interested in what you've suggested but I can't find any weight to back the claim. All forms of buddhism have been influanced by culture. This is both obvious and a given, but I am looking for real evidence that Pure Land buddhism was made up to convert the people of Persia, as you suggested. I have done the searches you told me to, but I can't find what you are suggesting. Where has your information come from?

    Thank you :)
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Do you have a name for the deity you are refering to (lion head human body) other than Zervan Akaran-Amita-Ayus??

    Aion - Zurvan Akarana : Zurvan (Zervan) means "Time" and refers to the finite time of history. Beyond that is Zurvan Akarana or "Boundless Time" which represents eternity. According to the Avesta, Zurvan Akarana (Zeroana Akerne) has always existed, his glory is exalted, his light is resplendent
    In late antiquity, Aion became fused with Mandulis (Merwel), who was a sun god of Lower (northern) Nubia.-
    http://www.hermeticmagick.com/content/deities/aion.html


    Amita-abha = boundless light
    Amita-ayus = boundless life ( time )
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Where has this come from? Reference?

    Thank you.

    Edit: The Avesta seem to be the religious texts for Zorostrian. Would this not be like using the bible to prove history??? :confused:
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Avalokitesvara' may be, his functions are well defined. There are three distinct stages in his growth. At first or originally, he was a member of trinity, consisting of Amitayus, Avalokitesvara and Mahasthmaprapta. As Edward Conze has stated, this trinity has many counterparts in Iranian religion, i.e. in the Mithra cult, and in Zervanism, a Persian religion which recognized Infinite Time (Zervan Akarana-Amita-Ayus) as the fundamental of this,
    http://www.ignca.nic.in/nl002107.htm
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Ansanna,

    This is the exact same text that I referenced and quoted earlier (see post 14). Do you have anything else? Where has your knowledge come from?

    Thanks :)
  • alayaalaya New
    edited March 2010
    jingnen wrote: »
    Can somebody point out the difference between the two?

    I see only similiarities, critical components for both:

    1) An abode of peace, love and rest after passing from this life
    2) Faith and belief in that heavenly realm
    3) A "saviour" kind of belief system
    4) A surrendering to a higher or "other" power

    Can someone help me, I am confused. :(


    hello My Dear Friend

    the question that you put forward is indeed very interesting.
    i would like to point you to the very interesting work of Martin Palmer
    he describes how Christianity came to China an in this Inspired
    the birth of Pure Land Buddhism...
    it would take me to long to explain in detail pleas read
    The Jesus Sutras: Rediscovering the Lost Scrolls of Taoist Christianity


    its a great and very Interesting book
    herberto
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hi Alaya,

    I'm afraid to say that the pureland sutras are much older than the Jesus Sutras, by around 500 years plus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Sutras
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

    Nios.
  • alayaalaya New
    edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    Hi Alaya,

    I'm afraid to say that the pureland sutras are much older than the Jesus Sutras, by around 500 years plus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Sutras
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

    Nios.


    Thank you Nios


    Have your read the book ' The Jesus Sutra "
    its really good and informative .
    how ever what you say seems true ,
    on the first look this would still make it
    100 year younger then Christianity.

    And remember Christianity spread in India with the Arrival of
    the Apostle Thomas, so that the doctrine of Christ
    Influenced Buddhism and especially pure land Buddhism seems very
    possible if not likely.

    thank you for the Conversation Alaya
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hi Alaya, welcome to the forum by the way :)

    The influences of other religions upon each other is something I'm very interested in. However, I'm urked by the amount of false claims not only found on the internet but also in books.
    I have read "The Jesus Sutras" and I though some of it was interesting, some of it seemed pure guess work, but without the book infront of me, I'm afraid I can't point out anything. Sorry :( But what I remember of it, the book was saying that it was Christianity that was changed and altered to appeal to the Chinese, making it look more like Buddhism and Taoism. Which makes sense to me.
    It is no surprise that the pre-dominating religions of the time had influenced Buddhism as it travelled. And Buddhism did indeed spread west before it went east, giving us fantastic Hellenistic Buddhist sculpture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art the influence of which then spread east and can be seen in East Asian Buddhist Art. It's also possible that Greek and Buddhist philosophy influenced each other. However this was pre-christian era.
    There is much evidence to show that Christianity was influenced by it's surrounding religions, possibly even by Buddhism. Take a look at Byzantine Christian art and see the similarities. Here's one showing Jesus, wearing a buddhist style robe and using a mudra
    300px-Ac.christimage.jpg

    I'm afraid to say, there is much evidence to suggest that Buddhist influenced Christianity, and very little evidence to suggest that Christianity influenced Buddhism. And I have never been able to find any evidence to suggest that PureLand Buddhism was based on Christianity.

    I think, the mistake that people often make is by thinking that Pure Land Buddhism started with the establishment of the Pure Land sects, around the 13th century, not realising that Pure Land practice and beliefs were part of most Mahayana schools for a lot longer, possibly not long after the creation of Mahayana, somewhere between the first century BCE or first century AD.

    Sorry for waffling on, like I said, I love this subject :D

    Nios. :)
    herberto
  • edited March 2010
    Hi thanks for all who responded, however I still don't see any major diffferences...could they be the same afterall, (besides differences in names i.e the Chistian kingdom of God is actually similiar to the Western Paradise?

    Have you seriously considered that?
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    jingnen wrote: »
    Have you seriously considered that?

    Yes, please read above.

    Nios.
  • alayaalaya New
    edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    Hi Alaya, welcome to the forum by the way :)

    The influences of other religions upon each other is something I'm very interested in. However, I'm urked by the amount of false claims not only found on the internet but also in books.
    I have read "The Jesus Sutras" and I though some of it was interesting, some of it seemed pure guess work, but without the book infront of me, I'm afraid I can't point out anything. Sorry :( But what I remember of it, the book was saying that it was Christianity that was changed and altered to appeal to the Chinese, making it look more like Buddhism and Taoism. Which makes sense to me.
    It is no surprise that the pre-dominating religions of the time had influenced Buddhism as it travelled. And Buddhism did indeed spread west before it went east, giving us fantastic Hellenistic Buddhist sculpture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art the influence of which then spread east and can be seen in East Asian Buddhist Art. It's also possible that Greek and Buddhist philosophy influenced each other. However this was pre-christian era.
    There is much evidence to show that Christianity was influenced by it's surrounding religions, possibly even by Buddhism. Take a look at Byzantine Christian art and see the similarities. Here's one showing Jesus, wearing a buddhist style robe and using a mudra
    300px-Ac.christimage.jpg

    I'm afraid to say, there is much evidence to suggest that Buddhist influenced Christianity, and very little evidence to suggest that Christianity influenced Buddhism. And I have never been able to find any evidence to suggest that PureLand Buddhism was based on Christianity.

    I think, the mistake that people often make is by thinking that Pure Land Buddhism started with the establishment of the Pure Land sects, around the 13th century, not realising that Pure Land practice and beliefs were part of most Mahayana schools for a lot longer, possibly not long after the creation of Mahayana, somewhere between the first century BCE or first century AD.

    Sorry for waffling on, like I said, I love this subject :D

    Nios. :)


    Thank you for the Answer Nios

    I see we share the same passion :)

    Thank you for the link you suportet
    http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article9815
    it actualy just shows that greek art influenced Buddist art.

    so i would not be surpriced if earlyer Greek art influnces also
    latter Byzanten art like you showed on the Icon of Christ.
    So docent seem to surprice me at all and seems no profe at all
    that Buddsim has influenced Christianti rather that Greek art Influenced
    Christian art and that is fahr from surpricing to me...

    By the way no need to be afraid;) even if there would be evidence for
    the case that Buddism influenced Christianity... which i dought siriously
    becouse what evidence is there ? or can there be ? since
    the oldest Buddist text that exist's comes one hundret year after
    Christ... http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/s_scripts.htm

    so how could you have evidence ? i mean i just wonder
    and i am open to see such evidence .... really....

    just wondering...
    maybe you know something i dont know...
    pleas share it i am willing and able to learn...

    Thank you
    God bless you and may the Truth set us Free
  • alayaalaya New
    edited March 2010
    jingnen wrote: »
    Hi thanks for all who responded, however I still don't see any major diffferences...could they be the same afterall, (besides differences in names i.e the Chistian kingdom of God is actually similiar to the Western Paradise?

    Have you seriously considered that?


    yes my friend , we have considert this
    and we actualy agree... we just wonder who had the originality
    of this Geniouse way of Liberation....

    I say it was Christ true the Cross , my Friend Nios says it was Buddha
    how ever i am convineced that everything has it's price...
    So also Salvation or Liberation
    Christ payd the heavy Price for us... we are free true His Love for Us
    but let's discuse this further...

    becouse ultimatly it is the TRUTH that will set us all free...

    Thank you for bringing up the question
    God Is Love
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    alaya wrote: »
    yes my friend , we have considert this
    and we actualy agree... we just wonder who had the originality
    of this Geniouse way of Liberation....

    I say it was Christ true the Cross , my Friend Nios says it was Buddha
    how ever i am convineced that everything has it's price...
    So also Salvation or Liberation
    Christ payd the heavy Price for us... we are free true His Love for Us
    but let's discuse this further...

    becouse ultimatly it is the TRUTH that will set us all free...

    Thank you for bringing up the question
    God Is Love

    Hi again Alaya :)

    I'm sorry to say that Buddhism is much older than Christ and Christianity. Over 200 years before Christ was even a twinkle in god's eye, Buddhism was already being spread through the Greek Empire (currently afganistan and Pakistan) by King Ashoka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great This is historical fact and can't be disputed. This early form of Buddhism is different to Pure Land Buddhism, which is what this thread is about. Pure Land, as a distinct sect, came about much much later as I had previously stated, but the Pure Land sutras, which are what Pure Land sects are much older.
    Pure Land buddhism appears similar to Christianity only in it's use of terminology. The Pure Land sutras were first translated into English using the terminology we are familiar with. For this reason, it has appeared that Pure Land Buddhism is similar to Christianity. It is, as I have shown, not similar to Christianity. This is even more obvious to those who practice Pure Land as the practice of Christianity and Pure Land are like chalk and cheese.
    It is also interesting to know that the name "Pure Land" is actually a mistranslation and it should be called "Pure abode".
    Dudjom (1904-1987), et al. (1991: p.474) of the principally Nyingma view, prefer the English rendering "pure abode" (Wylie: gtsang-ma'i gnas/ris dag; Sanskrit: śuddhanivāsa).<SUP id=cite_ref-3 class=reference>[4]</SUP> Technically speaking, even though we may adopt the use of the term “pure-land” outside an East-Asian context, as is commonly the case in English scholarship, in the Sanskrit texts and Tibetan translations Sukhāvatī is clearly referred to as either the buddha-field (Tib. sangs-rgyas-kyi-zhing), or a world-system (Tib. ’jig-rten-gyi khams).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_land
    It is also interesting to know, that in Mahayana Buddhism, as far as I'm aware, all the different Buddhas have their own "lands" or "abodes". The "Pure land" is just one of them, created by Amidabha Buddha. Manjushri, Avalokitesvara, etc all have their own "Pure Lands" which are different to Amidabha's Pure Land, but have similar functions.

    I think, it is important for us to know where our religions and our religious customs come from. I hope you and jingnen will continue reading and learning. :)

    Nios.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    alaya wrote: »
    Thank you for the Answer Nios

    I see we share the same passion :)

    Indeed. I have been researching this for the best part of 6 years. I actually first learnt of this before I was even Buddhist and I was studying History of Art at art college. It opened my mind. :)
    Thank you for the link you suportet
    http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article9815
    it actualy just shows that greek art influenced Buddist art.

    Yes, that is exactly what I was saying :). And if you look further in history, you'll see that Greek art was influenced by Egyptian art and Indic art http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/978-0-8348-0183-7.cfm, amungst others.
    so i would not be surpriced if earlyer Greek art influnces also
    latter Byzanten art like you showed on the Icon of Christ.
    You got it. :) But, if you know your history and Buddhism, you will know that the mudra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudra that jesus is posing with his right hand, comes from early (pre) vedic religions of india. http://wsu.edu/~dee/ANCINDIA/PRE.HTM also, the robe that Jesus is wearing is shown placed over his left shoulder, with his right shoulder bare, showing his under-garment. This can actually be linked to Buddha who asked his followers to wear their robes over their left shoulder, leaving the right shoulder bare.
    Within the monastery or residence and when having an audience with a more senior monk, a simpler style is adopted (as a gesture of respect and to facilitate work). The right side of the robe is pushed under the armpit and over the robe on the left leaving the right shoulder bare
    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:eodwICC_8QQJ:www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/robe_txt.htm+buddhist+robe+right+shoulder&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
    So docent seem to surprice me at all and seems no profe at all
    that Buddsim has influenced Christianti rather that Greek art Influenced
    Christian art and that is fahr from surpricing to me...
    You misunderstand me. I said that it was possible that Christianity was influenced by Buddhism. Christianity, like Buddhism, is influenced by many different cultures and religions. It's possible that what looks like Buddhism in Christianity might actually come from Hinduism or Yoga or Jainism.
    By the way no need to be afraid;)
    Trust me, I'm not afraid. Far from it :) I think it's good to know where our religions come from and what has influenced them through the generations. I am open to the evidence and I accept it. However, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Christianity influenced Buddhism.
    even if there would be evidence for
    the case that Buddism influenced Christianity... which i dought siriously
    becouse what evidence is there ? or can there be ? since
    the oldest Buddist text that exist's comes one hundret year after
    Christ...
    If you read the link I gave to King Ashoka, you will see that there is actual archeaological evidence that Buddhism spread to the Greek Empire over 200 years before Christ. We have Buddhist statues, Buddhist temples, Buddhist stupas, Buddhist universities, and even texts in the form of rock edicts which mention Buddha and his teachings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashokan_Edicts_(Delhi)
    http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Stupas-South-Asia-Archaeological/dp/019569886X
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanchi
    http://viewonbuddhism.org/time-line.html
    so how could you have evidence ? i mean i just wonder
    and i am open to see such evidence .... really....
    There is simply LOADS of evidence. The above is just the start. ]

    With much metta (loving kindness)

    Nios.
  • edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    The Pure Land sutras were first translated into English using the terminology we are familiar with. For this reason, it has appeared that Pure Land Buddhism is similar to Christianity. It is, as I have shown, not similar to Christianity. This is even more obvious to those who practice Pure Land as the practice of Christianity and Pure Land are like chalk and cheese.

    Hi thanks for bringing up again that they are different, but from what you have written earlier I still don't see the diff. Your points:-

    1) Pure Land is not eternal like the Christian Heaven - If I am not wrong the Sutras have emphasied repeatedly that inhabitants of Pure Land have an "infinitely long life". Thus Amitabha is also called Amitayus, Buddha of Infinite Life. Morever one is bound to gain enlightement once there, and never to regress. As such to dwell on whether the Pure Land is eternal or not is like splitting hairs to me.

    2) You wrote - Amida Buddha is not a saviour in the christian sense. He is not a God, he cannot rid you of your karma, and he cannot magically make you enlightened.
    Have you heard of "Gaining birth despite karmic obstructions, due to the vows and power of Amitabha"? This point was clearly stated in the Sutras and clarified by many famous Pure Land Masters such as Shan'Tao and Honen. Also the fact that you may lessen your Karma considerably by chanting his name (due to the great merits and vows of Amitabha Buddha). In a sense Amitabha doesn't rid you of your karma directly, but if you see it in another way he does.

    3) You wrote - Not so much "surrender", because Amida cannot control you or your destiny.
    Isn't it the same with Christianity? You do have a choice to believe in God or not. He doesn't control the choices you make. :confused:
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hi Jingnen, good to see you back again.

    I'll go over your points as best I can.

    1) Infinitely long and eternal are two different things. It may sound the same as eternal and it may sound like splitting hairs but it is utterly important to realise that the purelands are subject to imperminance. This is the most fundemental point of Buddhism.
    The universe is infinitely old when compared to our lives, but it is not eternal. It is also subject to imperminance.

    2)Pure land has evolved like all the other Buddhist sects. The original teachings of Pure Land is that you will be born their despite your karma. Chanting the Nembutsu is supposed to reduce your karma because of the merit of Amida's vows. This again is a mayahana trait that can be linked back to vajrayana practice in which it is possible to lesson ones karma by practicing chanting, mudras and rituals. Like I said, Amida is not the only one.
    Please look at shingon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingon_Buddhism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana
    Like you said, Amida doesn't reduce your karma directly unless you are looking at it from a different angle. Look at anything from a different angle and it's possible to see things differently.

    3)From what I remember of Christianity, is that, to get into heaven you must surrender to god. But if you don't surrender, he still controls your destiny (heaven or hell) Also, most christians believe that god influences you throughout your life. Some christians also believe that natural desasters are caused by god, like tsumamis. :(
    But like I said before, even if you do reach the Amida Pureland, you still have to do the work to become enlightened. The Pureland is just a stopping point.

    At the end of the day Jingnen, if you are so convinced that the Pure Land is no different than christianity, even after all that I've explained, then no amount of posting will convince you otherwise. Sorry to say it.

    Nios.
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Disclaimer: I'm not a Pure Land Buddhist and I haven't studied it extensively.

    One difference between Pure Land and Christianity is that Pure Land can be interpreted in a psychological way. The Amitabha Buddha and his Pure Land are projections of our own inner Buddha-nature. Because we don't recognize it in ourselves, we project it outwards and treat it as an external entity.

    Probably the majority of Pure Land Buddhists view it in a literal way, rather than interpreting it this way. But at least some Pure Land Buddhists interpret this way or some way similar, and it's accepted because it's Buddhism. If you were to tell a Christian minister that God is a projection of our inner, unrecognized powers, you'd get a strongly negative reaction.

    Another important difference is the fact that none of the various Buddha's are creator gods, and Buddhism has no creator god, or a god who is the ground of existence. Amitabha Buddha is believed to have been a man who became a Buddha.

    I'm another person who isn't clear on the difference between infinitely long and eternal. Eternal means existing for an infinite time into the future. In other words, an infinitely long life.
  • edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    At the end of the day Jingnen, if you are so convinced that the Pure Land is no different than christianity, even after all that I've explained, then no amount of posting will convince you otherwise. Sorry to say it.
    Nios.

    Hi it's ok.

    I am not totally convinced that PureLand is similiar to Christianity, neither am I saying that they are different (which is the reason I started this thread in the first place). I am looking for other views which might proved it either way, conclusively.

    I am just thinking that could it be we are so caught up with religious and man made segregations we fail to see the similiarities?

    Why can't they be the same, pointing to the same abode? Do you really think they are intrinsically different or is it is because you're labelled a Buddhist and he a Christian?

    For your info I am not a Christian trying to argue for the Pure Land being a offshoot of Christianity, it's in fact the opposite. Why can't Christianity be a simplified version of the Pure Land path?

    Anyway thanks for the replies my friend. See you in Amitabha's light.
  • edited March 2010
    RenGalskap wrote: »
    If you were to tell a Christian minister that God is a projection of our inner, unrecognized powers, you'd get a strongly negative reaction.

    Yes that I can understand, it would be horrible.:D

    Thanks for your reply.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hi Jingnen,

    My personal opinions is that the differences are just as important and the similarities. Buddhism and Christianity hold some amazing similarities, but I believe the differences are also important because we are different people with our own opinions and thoughts, likes and dislikes. I honestly believe that variety is the spice of life.

    I'll let other people give their opinions now ;)

    Nios.
  • ShutokuShutoku Veteran
    edited April 2010
    jingnen wrote: »
    Can somebody point out the difference between the two?

    I see only similiarities, critical components for both:

    1) An abode of peace, love and rest after passing from this life
    2) Faith and belief in that heavenly realm
    3) A "saviour" kind of belief system
    4) A surrendering to a higher or "other" power

    Can someone help me, I am confused. :(

    Here are some differences:
    1. Amida is not the creator of the universe or of us
    2. Amida is not a judge handing out punishment for bad behavior and rewarding good behavior: "If even a good person can attain birth in the Pure Land, how much more so a bad person!"..from the "Tannisho"
    3. The Pure Land is a place where one will attain enlightenment. One can then manifest in this world in various forms to help those in suffering.
    4. We do not Pray to Amida to perform miracles to make our earthly life happier.

    I think it is useful to understand that some Buddhists take this all quite literally, but many take it more symbolically. In my experience the majority of Jodo Shinshu followers (myself included) take it as more symbolic.

    Amida Buddha = perfectly awakened infinite light and life

    Sukhavati (pure Land) = utmost bliss.

    So if we take the nembutsu Namo Amida Butsu, with Namo being I take refuge in, or even I am embraced by perfectly awakened infinite light and life, and thus am born into a state of utmost bliss.

    As for "Other Power" I always like the metaphor of the eternal ocean, and we are waves that under certain causes and conditions, manifest on the surface of the ocean.
    Waves don't really need to try to be one with the ocean, they already are one with it. And in fact the only thing required to become one with the ocean is for the wave to do nothing at all, but simply rely upon the ocean...and gravity I guess.:lol:

    Amida is suchness in a form we can relate to but, Shinran said something to the effect of "the true Buddha is formless"

    When you look deeper into Pure Land you begin to see that is actually very different from Christianity, and is very much Buddhist. It is just a different Dharma door than say Zen or Theravada for example.
  • edited May 2010
    that is interesting, isn't pure land east asian?


    <DIR>According to the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Tathagata spoke the supreme Dharma to forty-one great Bodhisattvas soon after his great awakening under the Bodhi tree. In the closing remarks, a virtuous youth called Sudana visits fifty-three great Bodhisattvas and sages seeking for the way to Buddhahood. One of his hosts is Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, who teaches Sundana the ten Great Vows, so that, not only Sundana, but all those present at the time may obtain rebirth in Pure Land. This narrative is important as it affirms the practice of Pure Land sect that it is not just expedient means, but an ultimate goal surpassing all practices in other Buddhist sects.

    According to Mahasamgata Sutra, it reveals that in the Dharma-ending age, there will be countless practitioners of lower capacity or potential, so very few will succeed in attaining liberation. However, Pure Land sect provides the most simple, reliable and effective way in the attainment of liberation.

    Also according to Maharatnakuta Sutra, Shakyamuni Buddha urged his father, the King Suddhodana and sixty thousand members of his Sakya clan to seek rebirth in Pure Land.

    According to the Contemplation Sutra, Vaidehi, the wife of King Bimbisara, was about to be killed by her son Ajatasatru. Though Ajatasatru repented after listening to the advice of his ministers, Vaidehi was so disappointed that she paid homage to the Buddha, asking the Buddha why she had a wicked son. She also expressed that she would like to be reborn to a world without sorrow and trouble.



    <CENTER></CENTER>Thereupon Vaidehi again spoke to the Buddha," World Honored One, although all other Buddha countries are pure and radiant with light. I should, nevertheless, wish myself to be born in the realm of Amitabha Buddha, in the world of Ultimate Happiness, Sukhavati."

    According to the Larger Amitabha Sutra, in the era of Lokesvararaja Tathagata , there was a king, who left his royal family and became a Bhiksu named Dharmasaka. He asked the Tathagata to speak of the pure lands of all Buddhas, and their conducts in adornment and excellence. Thus, the Tathagata described 21 billion pure lands, and let Dharmasaka to see them all. Taking the perfections and all excellences and good qualities of all Buddhalands, Dharmasaka took five Kalpas to design and formulate the specifications in the creation of the pure world.
    After he finished the plan, he came before the Tathagata and made 48 great vows, saying that he would not be a Buddha if each of his vows was not realized. Now, Dharmasaka has become Buddha for ten Kalpas, called Amitabha Buddha. The Pure Land is called Sukhavati, which is located in the west of the Buddha land of Buddha Sakyamuni.
    Above all, not only the sages, and even the birds (rmks: animals speaking enlightenment to human, just ought to pay homage to animals) and the trees as the manifestations of Amitabha Buddha expound the Buddhist Dharma continuously in Sukhavati. In the presence of Amitabha Buddha. those beings in Pure Land can achieve and maintain right states of concentration easily, and attain complete enlightenment eventually.

    The Amitabha Buddha Sutra translated by Kumarajiva


    </DIR>Kumarajiva is considered one of the greatest translators of Buddhist scriptures from Sanskrit into Chinese. He was from Kucina (Kucha) of Central Asia (today's Kuche of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China) and the Indian-Kuchan parentage. His first attempt was in the Amitabha Buddha Sutra and a few other Buddhist scriptures. Then he translated the Maharatnakuta Sutra-Upadesha and the Shatika-Shastra. In the following year, he re-translated the complete Mahaprajnaparamita-Sutra, which includes, among many other scriptures, the Diamond Sutra. The whole translation task actually involved more than 500 monks as his assistants in the verification and editing work. Kumarajiva double-checked all texts in the Mahaprajnaparamita-Sutra. During the following year (404) he translated the majority of the Sarvastivadin-Vinaya and reworked on the Shatika-Shastra.

    Kumarajiva was a genius in language and literature. For instance, he also wrote the commentary of the Vimalakirti-Nivdesa-Sutra, which has a tremendous impact in the Chinese literature. Among all the translators working in China, he was probably the best in the Chinese language. In April 413, he died at the age of 71 in the Grand Temple in Changan. His last words were that he remembered he had translated about 300 texts in Buddhism and believed that other than the Sarvastivadin-Vinaya which had not passed review and editing, he could guarantee that all his translations should be correct and could be used for spreading Buddhism. In order to prove such a statement, he claimed that when his body was incinerated after his death, the tongue would remain intact. It turned out that his claim was true. According to Tang-San-Zang, the complete works of Kumarajiva include 35 Sutras/Vinayas/Shastras, covering 294 texts.
Sign In or Register to comment.