Pure Land. The Other Buddhism.
Citta
Veteran
In Japanese there is a term Jiriki. Jiriki means ' self power '. Ultimately it means the power of Buddha Nature.
It is the approach to Buddhadharma that is most familiar to westerners. The idea that in order to manifest our Buddha
Nature we must rely on nothing outside our selves. That we reach Buddhanature or Awakening by our own efforts.
However there is another very important concept in Japanese Buddhism, Tariki. Which means 'other power '..specifically the power of Amitabha Buddha..( Amida in Japanese. )
In ancient times Amitabha made a vow not to realise Nirvana until all sentient beings had also realised Nirvana.
Therefore the Pure Land practitioners call on the name of Amitabha to fulfil his vow for them.
In Japan and among the huge worldwide Chinese Community, as well as in Vietnam,and Cambodia, Pure Land is by far the largest Buddhist school.
There are more Pure Land Buddhists than all the other schools put together.
It is also very popular in the Tibetan community.
The Buddhist pioneer D.T. Suzuki predicted that Pure Land would one day be the largest Buddhist school in the west..because its practice ( recitation of a mantram to Amitabha ) can be as easily done in traffic or at work as in a mountain cave.
At a more subtle level he thought that Pure Land would solve the ever existing problem for western educated people, that the very upayas skillful means, that Jiriki uses can actually strengthen the western ego...The phenomenon that Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called " Spiritual Materialism ".
The idea of surrendering to 'other power' undermines the whole edifice on which the western view of the 'individual' is based.
Ultimately he said, the recitation of Amithaba's name is a far more practical way of reaching Right Samadhi .. absorption than attempts to develop jhanas.
I know that some members such as @dharmamom are knowledgeable about Pure Land through the works of modern Pure Land teachers Like Dr.David Brazier..I would particularly welcome their views.
Comments
It came as a bit of a surprise to me when I learned about Pure Land for the first time. Such a faith based approach seemed counter to what I had learned.
I don't know if Pure Land will take hold among westerners though. It seems to me that western converts to Buddhism are drawn to its practical and tangible aspects. If they wanted an approach to spirituality based on other power they'd probably just stick to some version of Christianity.
Its early days @person..Suzuki predicted that it would take several generations of western Buddhists before it took hold widely.
There are several Shin or Pure Land Sanghas in the UK which are growing apace.
I think its valuable to reflect on the fact that a rationalistic model of Buddhism might have its appeal to some..but that Buddhadharma is a very wide spectrum and that a literal belief in Other Power. Devas, Pretas, Rakshas etc is very much part of the Buddhist package that is shared by a majority of the world's Buddhists.
Such beliefs are not compulsory, but they are pretty pervasive.
I think we should avoid the two extremes of uncritical acceptance on the one hand, and talking down to ethnic Buddhists on the other.
It makes me cringe when I see western Buddhists saying to Malay or Sri Lankan or Nepalese Buddhists.." come over here old chap while I explain the Dharma to you..whose whole culture has been based on it for a thousand years , you see the first thing that you must understand is that some very important chaps in my country have decided that Buddhism is not a religion..."
I think basically, to tell you the truth, what puts me off this Tradition is precisely that. They "deify" the Buddha, and 'Namo Abitabha....' sounds too much like "in the name of the father...." to my ex R.Catholic ears.
While I had no negative experiences during my time pursuing that calling (in fact, I had some very positive experiences!), I don't have any plans to revisit that frame of mind. It does not appeal to me.
Actually, it has considerable attraction among westerners.
In the case of Jodo Shinshu, services are similar to those found in protestant Christian churches. People find that easy to adapt to.
It may not be what you've learned about Buddhism, but it's a tradition that is very popular. It's popular because it works for people. The oldest, largest sangha in town is a Jodo Shinshu community that was founded to serve ethnic Japanese who were moving here during WW2. What makes them successful is that provide a strong sense of community - something that is lacking in much of western society these day.
We use a Pure Land Temple for our Zen meetings.
IMO, it will remain, by large, a cultural following here (US) as opposed to newbies.
When we have visitors, and explain what all the statues and imagery mean....they usually equate it to Christianity. Most 'converts' would stick with the Gods and heaven lands they know as opposed to finding a new set.
The people that make you cringe.... they just don't know. And some aren't trying to find out.
Arrogant chaps can do that to the best of us. Work on your cringing. That's all I know to tell you.
Even among western Vajrayana practitioners it often comes as a surprise to find that " faith based " upayas are widely practised by Tibetans, including teachers.
They have as their basis the idea of Buddhafields, Sanskrit Buddhaksetra
The idea that Buddhas produce around them an energy field which accelerates the Realisation of those who enter them in this life or post -mortem.
So the energy field around Amitabha is experienced as an actual 'land' post mortem named Sukhavati
A very popular practice In Tibetan Buddhism aims at rebirth in the energy field of the great Guru Padmasambhava ( Who deserves a thread of his own. He is seen as THE Buddha for this age of Kaliyuga ) which is experienced after death as a land which stands in the shadow of a beautiful copper coloured mountain.
The point being not that we need personally accept all these teachings, but to point to the fact that Buddhadharma is a vast spectrum..from the Theravada through Mahayana to Pure Land.
Thank you for that teaching @Vastmind.
_/_
Pure Land encompasses much more than recitation. There are also very precise visualizations based upon a persons stage of practice. The one quality that in my experience with Purelanders stands out is their kindness and sincere willingness to be of help. Definitely some of the nicest people you could want to meet.
Thanks for that @grackle.
Thank you as well@citta. There is so much we like to see as a lesser practice. Until we try. I do know that chanting Amitabha's name is quite comforting. Some C"han practitioners are very open about about also following Pureland. In closing I'd like to say that the Dharma realm of Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas offers something that has helped me a great deal.
Suzuki said that we in the west see them as separate traditions, but that in the Zen tradition he represented Zazen and Shin were always found together in the same temples.
I'm not sure if Pure Land will really gain that big of a following in the west. If anything, for the fact that many westerners, when exploring Buddhism, find it to be too much like Christianity. At least, that's the impression I originally got from it.
Also, as someone who was a Pure Land Buddhist for a while, I have to say that this school is much more than chanting. Yes, that is a huge part of the practice, but so is cultivating compassion and loving kindness. Actually, I would wager that, of the well known schools of Buddhism, that Pure Land does the best job of doing just that. To use Hindu terms, Pure Land is both a Bhakti (devotional) practice, as well as a Karma (right action) practice.
Maybe thats why Suzuki thought it would do well @DaftChris.
I was first going to say that I have never seen any shin in any Zen temples that I have trained in but actually the elements of shin exist in any temple where devotion is fostered.
Not my path but it seems to work for others.
There are some glaring misunderstanding that can come with it but...what school doesn't.
Welcome to no-mans land somewhere between the Buddha & the human condition.
My teacher says the refuge has two sides. We usually think of the refuge from our side. We are pledging to do dharma practice. The other side of the refuge is that the universe will be our teacher. For example we have annoyances in order to learn patience. Or we have loved ones to learn compassion and kindness. You've heard me mention mandalas perhaps? I have talked about them for years on NB because it is a technique of my teacher. Well there is a practice mandala. We get messengers and guardians in every mandala including the practice mandala. Of course it is up to us to both notice the messengers and turn towards them to figure out what they are saying.
Is there something to having more 'fire and brimstone' as a pureland? We on NB have had some vocal pureland guests who got banned due to harsh language and I imagine not listening to mods.
True enough; But let's be clear: They did not get banned because they used harsh language, and refused to listen to Mods as PureLand practitioners.
They got banned because of harsh language and not listening to Mods, full stop.
Their practice or specific calling had nothing to do with why they were banned:
It was totally a matter of manners, courtesy, respect and civility.
Had they been Zen, Tibetan Theravadan or any other sub-school you may wish to mention, the result would have been identical.
There are several Pure Land traditions @Jeffrey. One group is very militant. The mainstream Shin groups are not at all like that.
I can see the practical use of the chanting, sounds really help me clear monkey mind!
It's great that we have so many schools of Buddhism!!! It's like drinking different types of coffee. Different tastes but same buzz!
Except for decaf...
From my own experience, Chinese and Vietnamese Pure Land sanghas tend to be a bit more "conservative," whereas Shin sanghas are less so.
What I mean by this is that the Chinese and Vietnamese Pure Land sanghas that I'm familiar with tend to be quite strict/borderline militant regarding certain moral/ethical guidelines (mainly the use of animal products, but sometimes even sexuality), and tend to view various Buddhas and their Pure Lands more literally.
Shin Buddhists will more or less outright say that Amida (Amitabha) Buddha is a representation of the infinite compassion that lies within us. A skillful means to quell the propensity towards jiriki (self power) and develop tariki (other power).
Of course, sanghas all vary! But I do feel that Shin Buddhism is a lot more friendly for a Western audience. Could also be because most Shin temples have all services in English, whereas Chinese and Vietnamese ones are primarily in their respective languages.
Thanks for that @Invincible_summer.
_/_
@Citta: as you pointed out above, I read two books by Zen psychotherapist David Brazier (who happens to be Pure Land), "The Feeling Buddha" and "Zen Therapy," and one by his wife Caroline Brazier, "Buddhist Psychology."
Strangely enough, both authors are not very articulate on Pure Land in these three books, except when they make reference to the Amida Order they belong to. They expand on Zen and Zen history enough but no clear connection to Pure Land could be inferred until one visits their site or their blogs.
Coming as @federica from a Catholic background, some of the Pure Land bibliography I have read also harks back to my early upbringing. I find this image of Pure Land difficult to reconcile with the the open-minded, scientific approach Brazier displays in his books (the voice in his blogs is a bit different).
All I can say, to anyone interested in Buddhism and pschology, to me Brazier is the psychotherapist and his books are the self-help books for Buddhists par excellence.
I could quote from him all day, but I chose a snippet on how to be a fully-functioning being, liberated rather than hindered by an ethical framework from "Zen Therapy:"
"From the western perspective, ethics and morality are generally conceived as limiting factors curbing the excesses of the individual. They are boundaries which prevent a person from straying, just as the fence around a field prevents a bull from wandering and causing damage. This model of ethics as a boundary portrays morals as a source of frustration, necessary but irksome. [...]
Since buddha nature is our inseparable unity with the whole of existence, ethics are not seen as a restriction, but as a liberation. They are the way to realize our core nature and consequently are the path of truth and happiness. Moral codes are simply an approximate description of the life of a fully realized being. A Buddhist will say, 'How can we possibly find peace within ourselves unless we live a pure life, in harmony with others?' In the quest for peace of mind, the way to start is by re-examining our relations with the world around us. Whenever the Buddha was asked to describe the path he taught, he started by talking about ethics (sila). Sila means to cultivate our fundamental ethical nature. This is the first step to training the mind as well as the foundation for future happiness. [...]
The syllable 'buddh' indicates a process of clear perception. A buddha is one who perceives the world just as it is. Consequently, a buddha is also one who acts in a clean and clear manner, doing things just as they are, without fuss. This characteristic is called tathata, ('thusness' or 'just-so-ness'). It suggests one who lives in a totally straightforward way, from a mind which is completely clear of neurotic distortion.
This state of liberated mind may also be equated with complete mental health. [...] The Buddhist precepts are a description of a 'fully functioning buddha.'
[...] In Buddhism, to judge or complain about others would be to break the precepts oneself. The precepts exist purely to enable each of us to find our way back to our own heart.
[...] Although we are almost all of us subject to neurotic, psychotic and hysterical distortions in our perception of the world, we all do also have an original pristine, clear nature: an unsullied basis for real perception and contact. The buddhata is like the sun behind the clouds.
[...] For a westerner, liberation is liable to be considered in terms of eliminating frustrations which stand in the way of getting what they believe their self needs in order to be happy. This invariably brings a person into conflict with at least some aspects of the natural or social environment. Ethics are external to the self or they are a matter of personal choice, as though an individual could change the laws of the universe by wishing them different. From the Buddhist perspective, however, ethics are not an external limitation, nor something we can shop around for. Rather, they are the voice of our buddha nature crying out from within. Our deepest nature wants us to live in harmony with the universe because we are in it and it is us. To act in an unethical way is to act against ourselves. Liberation is thus in no way served by kicking over the traces. Indeed, the liberated mind does not perceive any traces."
http://amidatrust.typepad.com/dharmavidya/2006/07/my_philosophy.html
The chanting of Amitabha can be employed in meditation.If one finds that one's mind starts to stray during meditation,mentally chant Amitabha.
The Pure Land of Amitabha was created out of Compassion for suffering sentient beings.Just this alone is very noble.The deitification is secondary.
To an illiterate person,the voluminous Buddhist literature is beyond him or her.Even to a literate and highly-intelligent person,some of the writings(such as the Surangama Sutra)may be too profound.
Hence the appearance of the Pure Land sect in this Saha world.
Chanting of Amitabha is very,very simple,yet very,very profound.Such is the unfathomnable Wisdom of the Buddha Amitabha in coming up with this "Easy Path".Many eminent Chinese monks,after spending entire lifetimes single-mindedly delving into,and laboriously pondering over the meanings of deep Buddhist texts,invariably advised sentient beings to take the Pure Land path just before they passed on.Those on the verge of dying never lie.
They must have very good reasons to say this.........
I question that Pure Land is popular in the Tibetan community. Tibetans I asked about it had never heard of it.
I wouldn't say it is all that well known in the UK, maybe in London and the South East but pretty much everything sets up down there. I have never heard of a Pure Land group setting up in the Midlands or the North, the majority of Buddhists up here are NKT or Zen with a few Theravada and Chan groups in ethnically Asian communities.
And @Not_Two , I'd like statistics to back this up:
>
Which 'Eminent Chinese Monks' are you referring to?
And I like this line:
>
One, it's not true, and two, the dead have plenty of living folk to lie for - and about - them, so there's often no need... (That said, I asked for 'statistics'... and as anyone knows, "There are Lies, Damned lies and there are Statistics") ...
So really, you need to find a way to back that statement up, because otherwise you'll have to admit its just hearsay....
I've never come across a Pure Land group in East Anglia ( UK ). In my nearest city there is Triratna, one Theravada, several Zen, and several Tibetan groups.
Yes, its a shame there isn't more of it about as I found a book on Pure Land in Derby library once and it intrigued me.
There is a pure land temple in Narborough in Leicestershire.
Here is my tumblr page on chanting for those interested
http://yinyana.tumblr.com/post/57234975984/buddhist-mantra-faqs
@lobster awesome page thanks.
I'd like to know who you've been talking to. The kagyu, at least, has a significant pure land component seen in a number of practices. Its not like Japanese types of pure land, but still pure land.
@DhammaDragon; if a person were to 'begin' exploring David Brazier's writings, what would you recommend as the book to start with? ETA oh hell, she's on vacay! Well, when you get back then!
Just some random folks I know in the community. The brother of one of them is a Nyingma lama. I didn't ask what tradition they were in. If there are Pure Land elements in some of the Tibetan schools, they're probably not referred to as Pure Land. That would be something Western scholars or Pure Land practitioners would be more likely to be able to spot.
They're called Pure Land. They're taught that way. Avalokiteshvara, Amitabha, Padmasambhava, Miatreya, and others all emanate a Pure Land. Dedication songs and other prayers involve references to Pure Land. Funerary practices involve Pure Lands. Mandalas often describe a Pure Land.
These practices, etc are not quite the same as "Pure Land" schools such as Jodo Shinshu and others that tend to focus on Amithabha practice.
I'm never surprised when people aren't familiar with what other traditions do or practice. I am a bit surprised that a "lama" - a monk who's been through a three year retreat where he/she's been given all the lineage teachings and many empowerments - has "never heard" of Pure Land.
What a world, eh?
My Sangha is "officially" Zen but in one of our chants we do mention the Amitabha Buddha. That actually really reasonates with me.
In "Orthodox" Buddhism that attracts Western intellectuals what is missing for me is the heart. By that I mean there's little in it that engages the emotional center of my being-- it's mostly about what's in the head. Ideas (or cutting through them) are valuable but for me to feel alive, though, I need to feel my emotional energy and use it in the world, otherwise it's like I'm a robot.
To me, that emotional center is about a loving, caring connection. That warmth and tenderness in the chest. That is probably why the traditions that engage it have an external "God" of some kind. To connect one needs an object, right?
I'm no charkra scientist but I just feel that Theist and neo-Theist traditions cultivate that heart or emotional center more than those that are fully focused on the Impersonal. Yes, I see all sorts of problems with the idea of a personal God but it's just the way I am-- I need something (or rather someone) in my heart.
There's a great article that hits what I'm talking about spot on:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/understand/gere.html
It is for this reason that I believe that if any form of Buddhism is to become mainstream in the West, it needs to be somewhat Theistic, even if in some abstract sense.
@Dakini my lama talks about bodhisattvas creating pure lands. It is related to, what I am always talking about, mandalas. In a pureland there is this mandala of practicing the dharma that is very real and powerful.
Yes, connection is important. Very important. It's not something intellectual - it's emotional, intuitive, a sense rather than knowledge.
This is very evident in the Tibetan tradition. You have a connection to the Guru. You have a connection to the Lineage, you connect with the sangha and it's a "heart" thing. It's something you feel, not something you know. It's loving, soft, tender
The term Genuine Devotion is commonly used in the Kagyu Lineage. I once asked my Guru what the term meant. He said, "open heart".
I too have trouble with a focus on the intellectual pursuit of Dharma. It's too cold, sterile.
It's also common for practitioners to connect with a specific practice of a Buddha or Bodhisattva. Sub-Sanghas form among these folks - devotees of a particular practice. They also form sanghas of a broader scope such as Pure Land groups. And it's oftentimes a connection to the practice.
Regardless, its always about heart.
Some folks develop an intellectual connection and that's ok, but not for me.
@federica, Regarding these eminent Chinese monks,please refer to this link:
http://www.thomehfang.com/kumarajiva/13Patriarchs/13Patriarchs_20Nov2003.htm
As to me saying those on the verge of dying never lie,I was referring to these monks.This is clear from my next and last statement.But I still believe that generally,the dying are less likely to lie than those who are not dying.Would you lie on your deathbed? I certainly wouldn't.
Could you provide statistics that the dying do lie?Any personal experiences?It is also possible that your view about the dying lying is also hearsay.
The dying may be less likely to lie about some things in some circumstances, but they also have incentive to lie... to preserve what people will think of them after they're gone. I'm not following this conversation so don't know how relevant that is to the topic at hand, but I think it's a truth in any case.
>
Well it's hardly surprising. These were Monks who practised in this tradition already. It's natural they would recommend it. I
You failed to specify the 'eminent Monks' traditions in your first post, so I thought you were inferring that Monks from other/different traditions had had illuminating instances on their deathbeds.
However, even in dying, this was only their opinion, not Fact. So it's not as if they were making some wondrous revelation.
I don't know, I'm not on my deathbed, yet, so I would hope hand on heart I can say I wouldn't lie (what about?) but then again, who can tell....? Of course, I shall 'lie' on my deathbed, like anyone awaiting death. I may not have the strength to sit....
.
>
I doubt any exist.
>
That's different. MY Grandfather lied on his deathbed as did his brother, and one of my Uncles. In all cases, it was about inheritance, the location of some possessions, who had them, and/or what had happened to them.
No, I am reliably informed by relatives and witnesses, so while the information is second-hand, it was verifiable and accurate.
@federica,
When I mentioned the monks,It is understood that I was referring to Pure Land monks.How else could I have meant.How could monks who have not practised Pure Land recommend it to others?It's like you have tasted some food,found it to be good,nutritious,delicious,then you recommend it to others.You yourself have benefitted from it,so you recommend it to others so that they benefit too.
Of course it's natural.It's unnatural only if you have not practised it and then recommed to others.
Could you please explain why you said their "opinions"(actually they were their cultivation experiences)are not fact?How do you know for certain their opinions are not fact?Your opinion of their opinions is also an opinion,is it not?To go by your logic,it also may not be fact.Have you practised Pure Land yourself as they had?If I have never practised Pure Land rigorously,over a long period myself,I think it's it's presumptious of me to comment whether the highly- personal Pure Land(or for that matter,other sects) experiences of others is fact or not,don't you think so?
These monks had practised Pure Land themselves,it seems quite rigorously.It was their life experiences,their thoughts and acts.These have been recorded.Who am I to say to them,"hey,your experiences are not fact".
I do understand that we have our own bias,even moderators.But if I make pronouncements that the experiences of others are not fact but just figments of their imagination,I would appear presumptious,even arrogant.
I have absolute faith in Pure Land now,something which I treated as a huge superstition in Buddhism.This is due to my experience and the experiences of other "Pure Landers".
>
Yes, my mistake.
>
Absolutely....
To go by your logic, it also may not be fact._
>
I never claimed my opinion to be fact. You are positing it as such, not I.
Their statements are opinions based on their practice, but it's still just opinion.
It's like me trying to tell you that chocolate cake is better than blueberry muffin and asserting it as fact when of course, it's just opinion.
You cannot have a totally verified fact and state it's merely an opinion, if there is concrete evidence and proof that the fact exists. If it's 100% verified fact, it can't be held to be an opinion.
Conversely, simply taking a statement of experience from someone, and calling it Fact, is also erroneous. If it is simply a statement based on something a person has done for themselves, then it's merely opinion, because other experiences also exist.
What point are you making, exactly?
>
No, not at all. In fact, to merely take someone's word and account of their experience, and accept it as fact, is the wrong View. The Buddha advises people to NOT do that, doesn't he?
However much you might respect someone's comments, it doesn't make them fact.
Fact is universally verifiable by all participating and taking part in something measurable.
Even if 1 million people were to put forward what the Monk said, it would still only be opinion, even if they all agreed. It might be FACT to them - but it would not be a Fact that had to be universally accepted by everyone else, no matter what tradition they practised.
>
You are someone who in your own right has not had these experiences for yourself, so you would have every right to say - "These may be your Facts, but so far they are not mine."
>
Do not make the mistake of thinking that my personal opinion has any relevance with the fact that I am a Moderator.
I never allow one factor to over-ride the other, as others I hope will confirm.
My Moderator status has nothing whatsoever to do with this, and why you bring it up is a mystery.
>
Not at all. In fact, I would respect it far more if you did, rather than accept in apparent blind faith that if he says it, it must be true.
It's not a question of it being a figment of their imagination (again, a presumption on your part, and something which has hitherto not even been alluded to.... experience cannot be a 'figment of the imagination'... :rolleyes: . )
It's a question of being alert enough to question why someone would say such a thing and testing it for yourself before agreeing with the statement of experience.
Good for you. But it's still opinion, based on experience, not Fact.
@federica,
Are the Buddha's words in,for example,the Pali Canon,just His opinions and not fact?
They are also just His words,aren't they?
Pureland is a wonderfully simple practice of Buddhadharma.
One focal point of practice the name of Amitabha and rebirth in Sukhavti after death.
Namo Amitabha Buddha !
Yes.
And he urged us to NOT take them as fact.
Didn't he?
Unable to wait for DhammaDragon to return from her vacation, I got the one Kindle book available from David Brazier 'Not Everything is Impermanent'. The following quote startled and pleased me with its simplicity:
I suspect Brazier is using the word 'suffering' interchangeably with 'pain', which was the startled part of my reaction -- you mean to say the Buddha was not overly concerned about ending dukkha? What? But if he means 'pain', what he says is beautifully simple and easily witnessed.
I'm not at all clear what Brazier is trying to say here.
It is a little different. It answered a question I wasn't aware I had about the cessation of suffering. The complete, absolute 100% cessation of suffering? Here??
But is this another variation on the familiar formula of "pain is inevitable but suffering isn't", or is he saying that the 4 Truths aren't really about suffering at all but about making wise choices?