Books on "Christology"/Buddhology in Jodo Shinshu

[steveb1]

I would like to find a book (or even an online source) that deals with the "christological" aspects of Shin Buddhism, such as -

The question of the literal importance of a real, historical Monk Dharmakara (regardless of the question of his distance from us in time and space or dimension).

Issues re:
Amida Buddha as a "primary" or eternal Buddha;
Dharmakara's "transfiguration" into Amida;
other Buddhas being manifestations of Amida - and would this be a kind of docetism in Shin;
the manner in which Amida makes himself present to practitioners here-and-now ...etc.

I would appreciate any tips in this regard - thanks in advance for any suggestions.

[Agnikan]

I would like to find a book (or even an online source) that deals with the "christological" aspects of Shin Buddhism, such as -

The question of the literal importance of a real, historical Monk Dharmakara (regardless of the question of his distance from us in time and space or dimension).

Issues re:
Amida Buddha as a "primary" or eternal Buddha;
Dharmakara's "transfiguration" into Amida;
other Buddhas being manifestations of Amida - and would this be a kind of docetism in Shin;
the manner in which Amida makes himself present to practitioners here-and-now ...etc.

I would appreciate any tips in this regard - thanks in advance for any suggestions.

What makes these aspects "Christological" as opposed to "Buddhological"?

[steveb1]

They aren't "opposed", but similar. That's why I included both together. Similar questions are asked about Christ and Amida, as to how much they may be docetic, what significance the historical figure of Jesus and the historical figure of Dharmakara had for their later transformation into greater than human figures, etc. I recognized the distinction, though, and that is why I placed "Christology" in quotation marks.

[Admin_PC]

Yikes. I think in general, most Pure Land schools are more interested in differentiating themselves from Christianity rather than trying to force their narrative into the format of Christianity. So I predict that this may be difficult to find. I mean the Mahayana world view is different enough from Christianity, that the documents are essentially read differently. Looking for some observable, external, objective truth in the teachings is a totally different way of looking at things, than looking for the subjective truth of the teachings, especially when someone like Vasubandhu (the Yogacaran) is counted in the lineage.

In response to the importance of the verifiability of Dharmakara Bodhisattva: I know you said separation by time is inconsequential, but the "inconceivable trillions of kalpas" (Amitayus Sutra) that he accomplished his Bodhisattva deeds means we're never going to find his bones, we're never going to see a photograph of him - he would've had to have done most of that work before the earth was even created. AFAIK, Dharmakara only appears in the Amitayus Sutra and the Visualization Sutra, so it may be incorrect to say that he was just a normal human that was mythologized later. But what he represents (and it's telling that his name is "Dharma Storehouse") is the aspiration of all bodhisattvas to save countless beings and the endless struggle for them to engage in the perfections (paramitas). We know that the most widely recognized Bodhisattva in our world, Avalokitesvara, counts Amida as a teacher and is continuing his work. We know of the human beings in this world that invoke Avalokitesvara as they teach Dharma and help sentient beings. So in that sense, it's a tangible lineage that we can directly experience today...

Regarding other Buddhas being manifestations of Amida - the Visualization Sutra in the chapters on visualizing Amida and Avalokitesvara touches on this. It says that Amida manifests countless Buddhas in his halo, seeing Amida is seeing all Buddhas in the worlds of the 10 directions. In Avalokitesvara's halo, each light disk has 500 manifested Buddhas who resemble Shakyamuni. The Amitayus Sutra also has a bit about his being a "primary" or "eternal" Buddha in the Chapters "His Infinite Light" and "His Infinite Life".

Regarding Amida appearing to followers, this is explicitly stated in the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra as available to anyone who undergoes the practice (assuming they can not only survive anywhere from 7 days to 3 months of constant walking "Mindfulness of the Buddha" practice without sleep or rest, but to be able to maintain single pointed samadhi during that time as well). Appearance at death is covered by the 19th Vow (and the Chapter "The Three Classes to Be Reborn") in the Amitayus Sutra.

[steveb1]

Thanks for your detailed reply. First, I am not trying to shoehorn Jodo Shinshu into a Christian mold. The parallels are already there and have been commented on for a long time. Second, while it is true that we'll never find Dharmakara's bones, still, by "historical importance" I meant his significance as a standard human who was the transformed or transfigured into Tathagagha ... like Jesus in mainstream Christianity, where Jesus was transformed by the Spirit at his baptism; as opposed to the biological/historical Jesus' "less significance" in Gnosticism and Docetism, where primary, essential truth is considered neither historical nor biological. I've seen both these opposing views applied to the Dharmakara-and-Amida model and am trying to figure out how historical or docetic Jodo Shinshu's view of Amida really is. These questions are touched on a bit here -

http://www.shindharmanet.com/wp-content ... Savior.pdf

Anyway, thanks again for your helpful reply.

[Admin_PC]

If we define human as someone who evolved on Earth, then technically Dharmakara was not human.
The process of his transformation is described in the Amitayus Sutra.

In regards to the article you posted, it's talked about in a recent podcast from the Institute of Buddhist Studies:
http://podcast.shin-ibs.edu/?p=393
I just happened to be listening to it this weekend.
Dr. Charles Hallisey of Harvard Divinity School maintains that Soga's understanding of Dharmakara Bodhisattva is completely different than that of Shinran.
Mark L Blum counters saying that Soga lived in a time when myth was not seen as valuable and there were many attempts at doing away with it.
I haven't listened to the whole thing yet to finish hearing all of Blum's points.
I'm actually glad you posted the article, because I wanted to read it.
Thanks a bunch!

As far as the whole debate of whether to take the story as a real person or as a metaphor - I don't consider them as mutually exclusive.
I would say that the Mahayana view of things tends to lend itself to Docetism in general, especially when you look at the Lotus Sutra.

[steveb1]

Again, thank you for your insightful reply and - isn't it an interesting synchronicity that you ran across that podcast just around this time - I am sure I will enjoy listening to it, and thanks for linking to it!