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.
Did he really say that?!
BonsaiDoug
Simply, on the path. Veteran
I downloaded a Kindle sample of the book, "Pure Land Buddhism: Shinran's Devotional Path to Enlightenment" by Roy Melvin.
As the author is explaining just why he feels Pure Land Buddhism is the true way to enlightenment, he says:
"This is indeed the true teaching, which is easy to practice even for the ordinary, inferior people, and is the shortest way that is easy to follow for dull and stupid people."
HUH???!!!
As the author is explaining just why he feels Pure Land Buddhism is the true way to enlightenment, he says:
"This is indeed the true teaching, which is easy to practice even for the ordinary, inferior people, and is the shortest way that is easy to follow for dull and stupid people."
HUH???!!!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
:rolleyes:
I think of it like this. We all ar first have dull and stupid motivations for following and practicing the dharma. Whether we admit it or not. But after some serious practice we resolve such motivations by finding greater aspirations.
Buddhism is a path that can be taken by anyone. Whether you are devotionally inclined or you are a strict intellectual.
If you're confused about the dull/stupid people. Well take a look all around you and ourselves. If we weren't stupid then we wouldn't need buddhism.
My stupidity and suffering has led me to buddhism so that i can wise up and be less stupid.
Lam phran brtan) one of the sixteen Arhats from Buddha Shakyamuni’s
time. Chudapanthaka was very dumb before he became an Arhat. He was
ordained into the Sangha at Jetavana, where Buddha lived for twenty-four
summers, but was so stupid that he could not learn or memorize even one
word of the Dharma. The Sangha eventually decided that they could not
have him as a member any longer. This was an ethical decision rather than a
reflection of their lack of compassionate or unwillingness to help him. The
Sangha lived on the offerings of devotees; offerings that consisted mainly of
food because the monks and nuns of those times did not own anything
except their robes and a begging bowl. The lay people made offerings out of
devotion, faith and trust in the learning, purity and accomplishments of these
Sangha members. If any member was not qualified, accepting such offerings
would be a deception and a source of bad karma for both that person and the
Sangha as a whole.
When Chudapanthaka was asked to leave the Sangha he was saddened
and depressed and began to cry. The Buddha walked past, saw him crying
and asked his followers what had happened. When the Buddha was told of
Chudapanthaka’s predicament, he took pity on him and asked him to remain
in the Sangha and perform the role of cleaning the monks sandals.
Chudapanthaka cleaned their sandals for many years with a focused mind.
He was happy because he was still able to live as a Sangha member.
After many years of cleaning with one-focus, one-concentration and
one-dedication, a thought suddenly came into Chudapanthaka’s mind, “Is
this dust the dust of earth or the dust of desire?” Then he immediately had
this realization:
This is the dust of desire, and any learned one who fully
abandons that dust is truly heedful of the Tathagata’s teaching.
This is the dust of anger, and any learned one who fully abandons
that dust is truly heedful of the Tathagata’s teaching.
This is the dust of ignorance, and any learned one who fully
abandons that dust is truly heedful of the Tathagata’s teaching.
When those lines came into his mind, he instantly became an Arhat. He
did nothing but clean the sandals of the monks and nuns with one-pointed
mind repeating the phrase, “I’m cleaning the dust, I’m cleaning the dust,”
but this was enough for him to attain liberation, when he saw through his
actions to the true nature of existence.
its a shortcut for people of lesser.....
they believe if you chant amitabha's name, sincerely, you will be reborn in pureland.
once you are there nirvana is guaranteed.
But the part that is related to this discussion is that she said that the heart also accomplishes the same purification. I think if the pureland practitioners have a sort of pure compassion it would accomplish the purification.
The same thing comes up in the Tibetan schools. The Gelug school emphasizes more of the scholarly reasoning about the nature of emptiness. Whereas the tradition I am familiar with, the Kagyu, emphasizes more of a yogic experience of direct experience in spaciousness as it is. I find that I am honestly not intelligent enough to understand much of the more intellectual systemizing and making distinctions in writing. This may be only my perception. In our sangha here on NB @person has on occasion presented discussion of some points of understanding of emptiness the terms and so forth to understand. For me just thinking in simple terms of my experience and how it seems to me is more accessible to me.
The odd thing I have noticed about pureland visitors such as @Spaceless which repels me from pureland are the very scary stories such as
"A worm is in an apple thinking it is the only world. Then it takes its last bite and is eaten by a bird."
So that kind of turns me off, the scare tactics.
I'm not sure how much real benefit I got from the study though; I mean, for example, learning the Two Truths from the point of view of four different Buddhist schools (Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Chittimara, and Madyamika Prasangika) is all very intellectually stimulating and interesting; but I'm not sure it helps me from a spiritual point of view.
I'll crack on with the rest of the course, but to be honest, I find it too intellectual and not practical enough for me.
I'm considering investigating some other types of Buddhism because the scholastic nature of Gelug Buddhism didn't do much for me in the way of producing 'inner change'.
Different brands of Buddhism suit different personality types, so I've read, but the problem is knowing what my personality type is? And just before someone says it, "What is the 'I' that has the personality type", I know I know.
In addition, I think that calling someone or some group a "dummy" is used on occasion to inspire the desire not to be a dummy, not to be an ordinary slob, not to one sheep among the less advanced herd. It may seem insulting, but also, it may work. Look at the number of spiritual persuasions that say, implicitly or explicitly, "We are the best-est with the most-est."
It's known as the "easy path" to Enlightenment.
There's not really much philosophical understanding required, except maybe for Jodo Shinshu followers (not sure about other Pure Land sects) that Amida's Buddha Nature is part of our own Buddha Nature and understanding Other-Power and Self-Power.
This is an 800 year old quote from Shinran's Kyogyoshinsho.
It is intended to humble the proud minded and uplift the poor.
This is a thread about to be closed soon...
@Asbestosbuddha when a thread is more than 6 months or thereabouts old, it's best to start a new thread and reference the old. There isn't much point in replying to someone who started a thread 6 years ago, as most of the participants are likely not here anymore.
** Yeah. What they said. ^^