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.
Kewl....where do you find that in sutra....Kalama Sutra?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes.... I seem to recall that the Buddha advises us to not take what we hear for granted, and discern whether it is foolish or wise counsel, advice or teaching.
Not to take it as wisdom, simply because it seems to come from a wise source, but to use our own discernment, appraisal and evaluation to assess its value. We have to live it, to know for sure what wisdom lies therein....
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice.
Pure land has at its heart the very fact that we are already buddha - you cannot 'become' buddha' -you are either buddha or you are not; so Amitabha is you, and it takes absolutely no effort to achieve this, just to realise this, is the realisation of pure land buddhism. I am amitabha, you are amitabha, we are all Amitabha.
Don't sweat the small stuff!
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Chaz said:
Ok, but what has that to do with matters of fact?
>
I never cited anything as 'fact' written above. It was not I who proposed certain experiences as 'fact' but Not-Two.
I merely pointed out that the 'Facts' as he saw them, in this case, were subjective, and a matter of personal perception, rather than concrete, indisputable and universally-acknowledged hard facts....
I am not disputing his accounts of his personal experiences, but his reluctance to challenge the matters he recounted, because he felt it would have been arrogant and disrespectful.
One does not have to be either, to 'challenge' certain matters, and doing so, does not make one arrogant or disrespectful. Just curious and open to all possibilities....
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited October 2014
@SpinyNorman said:
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?
My question exactly. And I don't feel confident making the distinction (is there one?)! Both make heart-sense to me.
I'd gently 'reword' you in " _ . . . or is he saying that the 4 Truths aren't really about suffering at all but about making wise choices?_ " I'd reword it as less of a 'contrast and compare' statement, because that framework leaves a lot of information outside the frame. Maybe creates a false dichotomy? The obvious reality of suffering AND making wise choices in response fits into my current understanding of the 4NT.
@federica,
I totally agree with you on that point.
So have you used our own discernment, appraisal and evaluation to assess Pure Land?Have you lived it?Have you tested the results it yields by putting Pure Land into practice?
You have said you have not practiced it.That also means you have not lived it.Yet on the outset you already "declared" Pure Land school as"not fact",meaning false.
The founding fathers who set out their views on Pure Land had rigorously practiced it themselves,tested its results,just like what the Buddha had urged.They must have also known about His words regarding blind faith since they were devout monks.
You said you have never cited anything as fact.But you cited Pure Land as not fact even though you have not practiced it,tested it yourself..To say something as not fact is just as wrong a view as stating it as fact,before one has rigorouly tested it.
Countless Pure Land practitioners throughout its long history have tested it by putting it into practice themselves.They have experienced it,checked it with fellow practitioners who are wise,found it to be true(fact).
That said,I do understand why you said Pure Land is false(not fact).You were"put off"by it because of the deitification of Buddha Amitabha.You just don't like the school.So you have not "guarded against the possibility of any bias"(quoting from your post).
So Pure Land,to you,is subjective, and a matter of personal perception.
Could it become"concrete, indisputable and universally-acknowledged hard facts?
0
SarahTTime ... space ... joySouth Coast, UKVeteran
edited October 2014
Love the stuff from David Brazier - thanks particularly @Hamsaka for the kindle quote and @Citta for starting this thread. Would also like to thank all here for a marked reduction in the apparent affliction in my life since I found this site! :om:
As one who used to feel my heart overflowing with love when I meditated as a young adult but then had it seriously punctured by an acrimonious divorce and who is drawn to different philosophies to continue its healing, I am very attracted to the use of "wholehearted" instead of "right" - especially for matters such as intention, action, effort and livelihood (not sure whether view can be wholehearted???). Is anyone able to comment on whether this is an acceptable translation of samma/samyag?
@Hamsaka said:
The obvious reality of suffering AND making wise choices in response fits into my current understanding of the 4NT.
Wise choice is certainly an aspect of Buddhist practice, but the 4NT seem to be primarily concerned with suffering and the cessation of suffering. So I don't think it's like choosing to not to suffer, it's more like seeing how things really are and responding on the basis of that insight.
@Hamsaka said:
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!
Hi, @Hamsaka!
Just chiming in quickly in the darkness because family is still asleep...
I love David Brazier's 'The Feeling Buddha' and 'Zen Therapy.'
@Hamsaka said:
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.
It's early here and I just got up, so excuse me if I say nonsense.
"I suggested that Buddha was very much concerned to help us avoid acting unwisely. Furthermore, the Eightfold Path cannot really be a path to something else because it is itself a description of the perfect life, it is the goal."
Brazier seems to understand that, more than focusing on cessation of dukkha as the end result, for the Buddha what really matters is how we deal with the emotions that dukkha gives rise to in the ongoing process of everyday life.
We might not be able to end all Suffering, but by embracing the N8P, we will at least be able to avoid the pitfalls of giving in to rash, unwise actions, which makes a self-contained goal in itself.
Of course, Brazier has some interesting takes on the 4NT and the N8P which some people might not agree with, but he never fails to present interesting food for thought.
@federica said:
I never cited anything as 'fact' written above.
No, you didn't. That's true.
However, I wasn't questioning that. Here's what got me attention.
And he [the Buddha] urged us to NOT take them as fact.
Didn't he?
I wanted to know where you got that idea.
You offered some snippets from the Kalama Sutra in what I thought to be a response to my question, but, of course, the Kalama Sutra doesn't say any thing about fact. In fact, the KS is more about emperical knowledge - that gained through experience, observation, experimentation AND THEN this empirical data is refined by passing it by wise people (teachers, etc). Empircal knowledge can't really be seen as fact not can the quest for empircal knowledge be seen as a quest for facts, so the Buddha's teaching to the Kalamas can't be viewed as a means for finding fact. It also can't be seen as permission to not take a Buddhas word as fact, nor does he urge us to take him or any Buddha that way.
If course if you don't want to take the words of an Enlightened Being as fact, or truth, or anything, that's entirely up to you and you can justify it any way you like.
I was simply curious.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Thanks so much for 'chiming in' from your vacation @DhammaDragon I really appreciate it!
I have so little room in my place I was sad to see only ONE of Brazier's books, the most recent one at that, available on Kindle. My book shelves squeak and moan every day, even another paperback seems like asking too much of them. But in order to get an earlier work, or one of his foundational books, I'm afraid I must. This current one seems to go over the basics of his 'interesting takes on the 4NT and 8P. And they ARE interesting, for sure.
He's 'easier reading' for me because of his background in psychology, it gives me more hand-holds trying to grasp his meaning.
What appeals to me, so far, is his practicality. The focus upon the path and the process, rather than the 'goal'. In all honesty, I cannot fathom existence without pain. An existence without suffering, though? That seems 'possible'. Brazier seems to suggest 'don't worry about that one either' and refocuses the reader on the moment by moment work. Just another validation that the journey is at least as important as the destination.
I'm interested in his 'take' because he is experienced and well-studied in the ways of secular psychology -- not so much the 'treatment' but the self reflection and inner work that I as an individual do for myself (and subsequently, all beings). No doubt this will jangle unpleasantly with the paths of many, it's clearly not for them.
What amazes me most of all is what little I understand about Pure Land is not plodding and practical, as psychology (in general) is. What an amazing 'marriage', I can hardly wait.
Who was it on this thread (?) that admitted they needed more 'heart' (feeling, emotional depth) in their practice to balance the practicalities of pure sutta study and analysis? I raise my hand. There's something about Pure Land that appeals to me, always has, it 'excites' me but doesn't exactly provide an explanation why :buck: .
In Sam Harris's book "Waking Up" he spends a long chapter discussing human brain functioning. In particular, that the right and left hemispheres each have a 'pole' of consciousness that work in tandem, although the right hemispheric 'pole' is verbally mute. This would account for my fascination with Pure Land, I'm convinced :buck: . My left hemisphere loves crawling all over Theravada and Vajrayana (well, some of it I fall off of) with it's little concrete tool chest, but there is a riveting beauty in Pure Land that eludes my analysis. Brazier is, first, a 'scientist' of psychology, and a deep practitioner of Pure Land -- bingo . Hamsaka's got toe-holds now!
Brazier's style also appeals to me because of his background in psychology.
Which stumps me the most, coming as he does from a Pure Land tradition, since I also have the idea that Pure Land marries badly with psychology.
Have to do more research on Pure Land when I come back from my vacation.
Like I said on a comment above, Brazier is not too articulate about Pure Land in his books.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I missed that in your post, that is disappointing that Brazier doesn't go 'more' into Pure Land in his books. I downloaded a free ebook about Chan Buddhism written by a scholar (can't find it in my 'puter for some reason), that touched on it from a westerner's point of view.
I'm not worried too much about the disappointment, it's more that I 'prefer' the psychological approach (I'm sure no one has noticed this :buck: ). My experience with mantras -- very recent -- and Brazier's description (?) of the Pure Land and its deities as realms of experience rather than concrete places or people hits home with me.
The other night I was aware of being invaded and occupied by anxiety, no specific thing. I found a simple chant on Youtube that spelled out the words 'Om amidewa hri' sung in the common Tibetan tune, and what came to mind while listening and chanting along was the 'perfection' implicit in things the way they 'are', as if the chant were a 'call to recall' that this 'perfection' is here, right here and affecting me. Chased the boogey men away, or took up all the room and squeezed them out, something or other! I ended up painting it across the top of my laptop screen in white paint .
Chanting mantras can be very powerful. I still use them sometimes, though it's not really part of Theravada practice. .
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Not at all! It's . . . not even close. It's this kind of experience for me that has happened over and over and over again, in whatever attempt to focus in. "Something" flies in and unwraps the neat little package. I guess I could resist it but I'm a sucker when I experience it for myself, wouldn't want to deny it or diminish it. How can a person stay honest with themselves otherwise? Placing 'laws' or 'paradigms' even over the immediate reality of personal experience is exactly backward. Except that it doesn't allow for stability and deepening, which is necessary too. Alas, the Middle Way, whatever that looks like for the individual.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Not_Two said:.. on the outset you already "declared" Pure Land school as"not fact",meaning false.
>
I never said any such thing. Please read my answers again, and tell me where precisely I said that...?!
The founding fathers who set out their views on Pure Land had rigorously practiced it themselves,tested its results,just like what the Buddha had urged.They must have also known about His words regarding blind faith since they were devout monks.
You said you have never cited anything as fact.But you cited Pure Land as not fact even though you have not practiced it,tested it yourself..To say something as not fact is just as wrong a view as stating it as fact,before one has rigorouly tested it.
Countless Pure Land practitioners throughout its long history have tested it by putting it into practice themselves.They have experienced it,checked it with fellow practitioners who are wise,found it to be true(fact).
That said,I do understand why you said Pure Land is false(not fact).You were"put off"by it because of the deitification of Buddha Amitabha.You just don't like the school.So you have not "guarded against the possibility of any bias"(quoting from your post).
So Pure Land,to you,is subjective, and a matter of personal perception.
Could it become"concrete, indisputable and universally-acknowledged hard facts?
You're completely taking my words out of context. I'm sorry, but I never said Pure Land is false.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2014
@Chaz said:...You offered some snippets from the Kalama Sutra in what I thought to be a response to my question, but, of course, the Kalama Sutra doesn't say any thing about fact. In fact, the KS is more about emperical knowledge - that gained through experience, observation, experimentation AND THEN this empirical data is refined by passing it by wise people (teachers, etc). Empircal knowledge can't really be seen as fact not can the quest for empircal knowledge be seen as a quest for facts, so the Buddha's teaching to the Kalamas can't be viewed as a means for finding fact. It also can't be seen as permission to not take a Buddhas word as fact, nor does he urge us to take him or any Buddha that way.
>
If course if you don't want to take the words of an Enlightened Being as fact, or truth, or anything, that's entirely up to you and you can justify it any way you like.
>
I take the Buddha's words as teachings I must test for myself (so far so good, although of course, I haven't yet read all of his teachings, but based on personal experience of investigation, I must say it's looking good!)
And this word 'fact' being bandied about, is not attributable to me. You'll have to tackle @Not_Two about that.
My contention is that while Not_Two insists that eminent Monks have declared that following Pure Land tradition and teaching is the best way to go (I'm paraphrasing here) Not_Two is taking that as fact, but I am still of the opinion that even though some as eminent a Monk as those he mentions, may instruct such wisdom, one should first test it for themselves, until it becomes Fact for them, but it should still be accepted that this is a personally-based Fact, not one that is indisputable by all.
I hope that allays your curiosity...
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
I'm 98% sure you are referencing my previous post . . . how embarrassing if I'm wrong, my rear end has been on display plenty of times before :buck: .
It's difficult to express how it is fitting together within me, and if you don't understand it's not because of your 'lack'. 'Whatever it is' in my perceptual faculties prevents me from setting up permanent shop within exclusive paradigms -- there, that sounds even more obscure than ever :P . Thanks for trying to understand, anyway it's on me to make myself understandable, which I struggle to do with this matter.
Comments
You don't know?
The question was rhetorical.
You know what a rhetorical question is, don't you?
.
Didn't read like it was rhetorical, but what do I know?
Can I take that to mean that you DO know?
Yes, I DO know....
.
Thanks for your interest though. Appreciated....
Kewl....where do you find that in sutra....Kalama Sutra?
Yes.... I seem to recall that the Buddha advises us to not take what we hear for granted, and discern whether it is foolish or wise counsel, advice or teaching.
Not to take it as wisdom, simply because it seems to come from a wise source, but to use our own discernment, appraisal and evaluation to assess its value. We have to live it, to know for sure what wisdom lies therein....
>
From here.
.
Ok, but what has that to do with matters of fact?
Pure land has at its heart the very fact that we are already buddha - you cannot 'become' buddha' -you are either buddha or you are not; so Amitabha is you, and it takes absolutely no effort to achieve this, just to realise this, is the realisation of pure land buddhism. I am amitabha, you are amitabha, we are all Amitabha.
Don't sweat the small stuff!
>
I never cited anything as 'fact' written above. It was not I who proposed certain experiences as 'fact' but Not-Two.
I merely pointed out that the 'Facts' as he saw them, in this case, were subjective, and a matter of personal perception, rather than concrete, indisputable and universally-acknowledged hard facts....
I am not disputing his accounts of his personal experiences, but his reluctance to challenge the matters he recounted, because he felt it would have been arrogant and disrespectful.
One does not have to be either, to 'challenge' certain matters, and doing so, does not make one arrogant or disrespectful. Just curious and open to all possibilities....
My question exactly. And I don't feel confident making the distinction (is there one?)! Both make heart-sense to me.
I'd gently 'reword' you in " _ . . . or is he saying that the 4 Truths aren't really about suffering at all but about making wise choices?_ " I'd reword it as less of a 'contrast and compare' statement, because that framework leaves a lot of information outside the frame. Maybe creates a false dichotomy? The obvious reality of suffering AND making wise choices in response fits into my current understanding of the 4NT.
@federica,
I totally agree with you on that point.
So have you used our own discernment, appraisal and evaluation to assess Pure Land?Have you lived it?Have you tested the results it yields by putting Pure Land into practice?
You have said you have not practiced it.That also means you have not lived it.Yet on the outset you already "declared" Pure Land school as"not fact",meaning false.
The founding fathers who set out their views on Pure Land had rigorously practiced it themselves,tested its results,just like what the Buddha had urged.They must have also known about His words regarding blind faith since they were devout monks.
You said you have never cited anything as fact.But you cited Pure Land as not fact even though you have not practiced it,tested it yourself..To say something as not fact is just as wrong a view as stating it as fact,before one has rigorouly tested it.
Countless Pure Land practitioners throughout its long history have tested it by putting it into practice themselves.They have experienced it,checked it with fellow practitioners who are wise,found it to be true(fact).
That said,I do understand why you said Pure Land is false(not fact).You were"put off"by it because of the deitification of Buddha Amitabha.You just don't like the school.So you have not "guarded against the possibility of any bias"(quoting from your post).
So Pure Land,to you,is subjective, and a matter of personal perception.
Could it become"concrete, indisputable and universally-acknowledged hard facts?
Love the stuff from David Brazier - thanks particularly @Hamsaka for the kindle quote and @Citta for starting this thread. Would also like to thank all here for a marked reduction in the apparent affliction in my life since I found this site! :om:
As one who used to feel my heart overflowing with love when I meditated as a young adult but then had it seriously punctured by an acrimonious divorce and who is drawn to different philosophies to continue its healing, I am very attracted to the use of "wholehearted" instead of "right" - especially for matters such as intention, action, effort and livelihood (not sure whether view can be wholehearted???). Is anyone able to comment on whether this is an acceptable translation of samma/samyag?
In hope :rolleyes:
Wise choice is certainly an aspect of Buddhist practice, but the 4NT seem to be primarily concerned with suffering and the cessation of suffering. So I don't think it's like choosing to not to suffer, it's more like seeing how things really are and responding on the basis of that insight.
Hi, @Hamsaka!
Just chiming in quickly in the darkness because family is still asleep...
I love David Brazier's 'The Feeling Buddha' and 'Zen Therapy.'
It's early here and I just got up, so excuse me if I say nonsense.
"I suggested that Buddha was very much concerned to help us avoid acting unwisely. Furthermore, the Eightfold Path cannot really be a path to something else because it is itself a description of the perfect life, it is the goal."
Brazier seems to understand that, more than focusing on cessation of dukkha as the end result, for the Buddha what really matters is how we deal with the emotions that dukkha gives rise to in the ongoing process of everyday life.
We might not be able to end all Suffering, but by embracing the N8P, we will at least be able to avoid the pitfalls of giving in to rash, unwise actions, which makes a self-contained goal in itself.
Of course, Brazier has some interesting takes on the 4NT and the N8P which some people might not agree with, but he never fails to present interesting food for thought.
No, you didn't. That's true.
However, I wasn't questioning that. Here's what got me attention.
I wanted to know where you got that idea.
You offered some snippets from the Kalama Sutra in what I thought to be a response to my question, but, of course, the Kalama Sutra doesn't say any thing about fact. In fact, the KS is more about emperical knowledge - that gained through experience, observation, experimentation AND THEN this empirical data is refined by passing it by wise people (teachers, etc). Empircal knowledge can't really be seen as fact not can the quest for empircal knowledge be seen as a quest for facts, so the Buddha's teaching to the Kalamas can't be viewed as a means for finding fact. It also can't be seen as permission to not take a Buddhas word as fact, nor does he urge us to take him or any Buddha that way.
If course if you don't want to take the words of an Enlightened Being as fact, or truth, or anything, that's entirely up to you and you can justify it any way you like.
I was simply curious.
Thanks so much for 'chiming in' from your vacation @DhammaDragon
I really appreciate it!
I have so little room in my place I was sad to see only ONE of Brazier's books, the most recent one at that, available on Kindle. My book shelves squeak and moan every day, even another paperback seems like asking too much of them. But in order to get an earlier work, or one of his foundational books, I'm afraid I must. This current one seems to go over the basics of his 'interesting takes on the 4NT and 8P. And they ARE interesting, for sure.
He's 'easier reading' for me because of his background in psychology, it gives me more hand-holds trying to grasp his meaning.
What appeals to me, so far, is his practicality. The focus upon the path and the process, rather than the 'goal'. In all honesty, I cannot fathom existence without pain. An existence without suffering, though? That seems 'possible'. Brazier seems to suggest 'don't worry about that one either' and refocuses the reader on the moment by moment work. Just another validation that the journey is at least as important as the destination.
I'm interested in his 'take' because he is experienced and well-studied in the ways of secular psychology -- not so much the 'treatment' but the self reflection and inner work that I as an individual do for myself (and subsequently, all beings). No doubt this will jangle unpleasantly with the paths of many, it's clearly not for them.
What amazes me most of all is what little I understand about Pure Land is not plodding and practical, as psychology (in general) is. What an amazing 'marriage', I can hardly wait.
Who was it on this thread (?) that admitted they needed more 'heart' (feeling, emotional depth) in their practice to balance the practicalities of pure sutta study and analysis? I raise my hand. There's something about Pure Land that appeals to me, always has, it 'excites' me but doesn't exactly provide an explanation why :buck: .
In Sam Harris's book "Waking Up" he spends a long chapter discussing human brain functioning. In particular, that the right and left hemispheres each have a 'pole' of consciousness that work in tandem, although the right hemispheric 'pole' is verbally mute. This would account for my fascination with Pure Land, I'm convinced :buck: . My left hemisphere loves crawling all over Theravada and Vajrayana (well, some of it I fall off of) with it's little concrete tool chest, but there is a riveting beauty in Pure Land that eludes my analysis. Brazier is, first, a 'scientist' of psychology, and a deep practitioner of Pure Land -- bingo
. Hamsaka's got toe-holds now!
Brazier's style also appeals to me because of his background in psychology.
Which stumps me the most, coming as he does from a Pure Land tradition, since I also have the idea that Pure Land marries badly with psychology.
Have to do more research on Pure Land when I come back from my vacation.
Like I said on a comment above, Brazier is not too articulate about Pure Land in his books.
I missed that in your post, that is disappointing that Brazier doesn't go 'more' into Pure Land in his books. I downloaded a free ebook about Chan Buddhism written by a scholar (can't find it in my 'puter for some reason), that touched on it from a westerner's point of view.
I'm not worried too much about the disappointment, it's more that I 'prefer' the psychological approach (I'm sure no one has noticed this :buck: ). My experience with mantras -- very recent -- and Brazier's description (?) of the Pure Land and its deities as realms of experience rather than concrete places or people hits home with me.
The other night I was aware of being invaded and occupied by anxiety, no specific thing. I found a simple chant on Youtube that spelled out the words 'Om amidewa hri' sung in the common Tibetan tune, and what came to mind while listening and chanting along was the 'perfection' implicit in things the way they 'are', as if the chant were a 'call to recall' that this 'perfection' is here, right here and affecting me. Chased the boogey men away, or took up all the room and squeezed them out, something or other! I ended up painting it across the top of my laptop screen in white paint
.
Chanting mantras can be very powerful. I still use them sometimes, though it's not really part of Theravada practice.
.
Not at all! It's . . . not even close. It's this kind of experience for me that has happened over and over and over again, in whatever attempt to focus in. "Something" flies in and unwraps the neat little package. I guess I could resist it but I'm a sucker when I experience it for myself, wouldn't want to deny it or diminish it. How can a person stay honest with themselves otherwise? Placing 'laws' or 'paradigms' even over the immediate reality of personal experience is exactly backward. Except that it doesn't allow for stability and deepening, which is necessary too. Alas, the Middle Way, whatever that looks like for the individual.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
>
I never said any such thing. Please read my answers again, and tell me where precisely I said that...?!
You're completely taking my words out of context. I'm sorry, but I never said Pure Land is false.
>
>
I take the Buddha's words as teachings I must test for myself (so far so good, although of course, I haven't yet read all of his teachings, but based on personal experience of investigation, I must say it's looking good!)
And this word 'fact' being bandied about, is not attributable to me. You'll have to tackle @Not_Two about that.
My contention is that while Not_Two insists that eminent Monks have declared that following Pure Land tradition and teaching is the best way to go (I'm paraphrasing here) Not_Two is taking that as fact, but I am still of the opinion that even though some as eminent a Monk as those he mentions, may instruct such wisdom, one should first test it for themselves, until it becomes Fact for them, but it should still be accepted that this is a personally-based Fact, not one that is indisputable by all.
I hope that allays your curiosity...
I'm 98% sure you are referencing my previous post . . . how embarrassing if I'm wrong, my rear end has been on display plenty of times before :buck: .
It's difficult to express how it is fitting together within me, and if you don't understand it's not because of your 'lack'. 'Whatever it is' in my perceptual faculties prevents me from setting up permanent shop within exclusive paradigms -- there, that sounds even more obscure than ever :P . Thanks for trying to understand, anyway
it's on me to make myself understandable, which I struggle to do with this matter.