Amida Is A Real Buddha

[Serenity509]

As a Shin Buddhist, the way I look at it is that I shouldn't have to take the literal historicity of Dharmakara any more seriously than the average Shin Buddhist in Japan does today, or the average priest or teacher in Buddhist Churches of America does either. Though I was raised in a Christian background, I am taking my cues from actual Buddhists when it comes to how I should interpret the sutras. In my Christian past, I had negative experiences with fundamentalist-thinking believers and pastors, and it left a bad taste in my mouth.

What I've looked for in Buddhism is not secularism or materialism but instead a different way of looking at and practicing religious faith. On an ultimate level, Buddhism has traditionally been more about following a path than about propositional beliefs. And my personal belief is that Amida Buddha is with me, every step along the way.

[Serenity509]

My sensei's family has ministered temples for multiple generations. When their temple in Hiroshima was bombed, his grandfather had to rebuild it. Despite his country suffering such a horrible injustice at the hands of my country, he came here to teach the Dharma anyway. So when my sensei says it's good to read Alfred Bloom's commentary on the Tannisho, I will read Alfred Bloom's commentary on the Tannisho. Some may disagree with Bloom or the way he presents the Dharma. This is simply my sensei being sensitive to the needs and concerns of Western people, and recommending an author who meets us where we're at. This is the meaning of expedient means.

[Serenity509]

Pure Land devotion is common in Tibetan Buddhism. I've looked up references to Amitabha on Tibetan Buddhist websites and they refer to him as a transcendent or primordial Buddha, rather than a historical Buddha. This means that Amitabha's existed from eternal past, rather than having a literal beginning as Dharmakara. I wonder if these Tibetan Buddhists are "modernist" as well.

[steveb1]

As a Shin Buddhist, the way I look at it is that I shouldn't have to take the literal historicity of Dharmakara any more seriously than the average Shin Buddhist in Japan does today, or the average priest or teacher in Buddhist Churches of America does either. Though I was raised in a Christian background, I am taking my cues from actual Buddhists when it comes to how I should interpret the sutras. In my Christian past, I had negative experiences with fundamentalist-thinking believers and pastors, and it left a bad taste in my mouth.

What I've looked for in Buddhism is not secularism or materialism but instead a different way of looking at and practicing religious faith. On an ultimate level, Buddhism has traditionally been more about following a path than about propositional beliefs. And my personal belief is that Amida Buddha is with me, every step along the way.

My own take is that, for me as a Shin Budddhist, Amida is a real Buddha, i.e., an authentic, individuated consciousness. Not a "guy like us", not a glorified human like the risen Christ, not an anthropomorphic form - but a "Person" in the basic connotation of the word.

So, for me, although Amida-imagery, analogy, metaphor, allegory and symbology are both necessary and helpful, there must be a real Buddha behind / or above / or beyond the symbol - or the symbol is emptied of its value-bearing content. The symbol must point beyond itself to a concrete-albeit-transcendental reality, and for me this reality is Amida Buddha. From my perspective, when "expedient means" become means of obscuration, i.e., when they point only to some rationally-understandable category, then something essential is lost, and that is the real Amida Buddha. To me if expedient means lead away from, rather than toward, a real Amida, then they are not really very expedient.

Although I have not completed it, I would like to recommend a new book that contains manifold examples of how a variety of Buddhist sages and teachers regard Amida as a real Buddha:

http://www.amazon.com/Fragrance-Light-J ... e+of+light

[Serenity509]

I agree with the things you are saying. Amida Buddha is, for me, Nirvana personified or Dharmakaya-as-compassion. Even if the Pure Land sutras were a metaphorical account to describe this amazing presence or being, Amida Buddha would still be real to me. Fundamentalist-thinking Buddhist converts like Paul Roberts lose sight of the fact that Shinran never insisted on the sutras being interpreted 100% literally anyway, so the important thing is to focus on the light of Amida Buddha shining on you in the present moment, not whether the story of Dharmakara literally happened eons ago.

Near-death experiences throughout history reveal that Amida Buddha is a real being:

The Pure Land tradition is renowned for recording the miraculous experiences of Amida Buddha and his attendants coming to guide the dying to the Pure Land. Some people say that these experiences are just hagiography, but the specificity of detail in such accounts gives prima facie reason for distinguishing them from adjacent fairy tales. Prof. Becker himself has identified some 100 such accounts from China and Japan.

In the 1970s, Prof. Becker found other people studying near-death experiences in the United States. With hints from the renowned death specialist Dr. Elizabath Kubler-Ross, he helped to found the International Association of Near Death Studies. In the process of this study, researchers found the need to coin the new term “figure of light” which they found common across various cultures. Hospital research around the world has shown that this “figure of light” is experienced by many dying people. This is not just a belief, but has been well documented over the past 30 years worldwide and the last 15 years in Japan. This is hardly surprising, since Japan has a long tradition of this belief in Pure Land practice, but such studies have been slow to permeate modern Japanese medicine.

The question that Prof. Becker then addressed to the group was, “So what? How can this person of light help us and help others?” Shakyamuni Buddha had a profound understanding of suffering and its cure. This philosophical tradition was cultivated for 1,000 years before it came to Japan. When it came to Japan, the Japanese lacked the language to grapple with it. Buddhism brought new technology (arts and temples) as well as language. For most Japanese in the 9th to 12th centuries, Buddhism was too much to understand. To 12th century Japanese, for whom death of plagues, wars, and famines was a major problem, the Pure Land tradition made eminently good sense. In 21st century Japan, 100 million people will die from old age alone. This is the largest occurrence of death in such a limited geographical area in the history of humankind. In this way, death will become a big problem again in Japan soon. How can an understanding of Amida Buddha respond to this situation?

Prof. Becker then showed a video on Near Death Experience (NDE) from Japanese television for which he acted as a consultant. In many NDEs, people speak of being (re)born through a tunnel of light, which image matches the Pure Land account of being (re)born through the calyx of the lotus into the Pure Land. There are many accounts of natural and flowery images as in the Pure Land. These are difficult to attribute solely to anaesthesic drugs, since such drugs tend to create architectural and geometrical images, and most experiencers had not received medication in the first place. Many NDEs in hospitals cannot be explained as delusions or dreams; there are many documented incidents of soldiers who were seen by their wives in their homes at the moment that they were mortally wounded on distant battlefields. We know that such phenomena can occur, but we don’t know how.
http://www.jsri.jp/English/ojo/round1/day2morn.html

[steveb1]

Thanks for the interesting NDE stuff... Yes, for me too Shinjin is Amida's presence "in-and-for" me. Like the Catholic Eucharist is said to be, the Nembutsu is an immersion in Amida, a kind of "Shin sacrament". The saying itself, unlike mere symbol, actually "delivers" Amida to the Nembustu-sayer. In this way, we have Amida without needing to worry about "the frills".

I "take it on faith" that some being (perhaps terrestrial, extraterrestrial, very ancient, and/or interdimensional) found, like Gotama, that the riches of kingship were ultimately unsatisfactory and so, again like Gotama, went on a seeking-journey. On the way he met a currently teaching Buddha, took the Bodhisattva path and became Amida Buddha. As far as an origins-story goes, it's satisfying enough for me. But I doubt that the existence of Amida as a primal, eternal Buddha has to be dependent on the story of Monk Dharmakara... although the contemplation of a mortal being outside of our normal locale of spacetime, who like the human Gotama, became Buddha, surely appeals to my sense of the Dharma's universality...

[Serenity509]

But I doubt that the existence of Amida as a primal, eternal Buddha has to be dependent on the story of Monk Dharmakara.

Yes, and I wish this were easier for certain individuals to accept. It's simply a strawman to insist that modern Shin teachers see Amida as just a fictional character when, in reality, they see Amida as something even more amazing than literal-minded people might understand.

[Serenity509]

I know that a Buddha is supposed to be dispassionate, but I shed tears every time I'm in the temple. They are tears that well up from the bottom of my heart. Reflecting on the light of Amida that shines on my imperfect self, I shed tears of gratitude. In reading out loud the Golden Chain, I am reminded of how often I fall short of this ideal, and I shed tears of heartfelt contrition. In hearing the Dharma talk, I shed tears for the impermanence of life. I then sing the song about Shinran being with us every time we say the Nembutsu, and he weeps with and through me for the suffering and the deluded of this world. I then shed tears of joy knowing that, in the end, every sentient being will be linked in Amida's Golden Chain. Amida is more real to me than my false ego-self.

[DGA]

Hello all, I have been lurking for a long time, but the revival of this topic finally gave me motivation to register, and post.

I have strong personal opinions regarding the historicity of Amida, so my comments on this subject may seem harsh, and if they do appear so, I do not mean any disrespect to anyone personally or towards their beliefs.

To me, it matters not whether Amida existed as a physical being kalpas ago, because I do not think the working of Amida need be based upon some physical form. Space has no physical form, so are you going to deny the workings of space in that it gives room for all? I take issue with these so called "true true" Buddhists who insist that you must believe in the historicity of Amida, and their crusade against "modernists". I know it is quite a popular opinion to think that those who think of Amida as more of a "metaphor" are considered "modernists", but I disagree. To me, the modernists are those who are insisting you must believe this, or that. The whole extreme literalism is a wholly Western mode of interpretting the Sutras. Do these people view literally all of the Sutras literally, or just the Threefold Pure Land Sutras?

I may be wrong as I am just an ignorant human, but to me, it does not matter if you believe in the historicity of Amida, or if you view him in abstract terms. When I hear people telling others they need to believe a certain way, it makes me think that their is something lacking in the faith of the one speaking. Finally, unless you are a Buddha, you are not going to tell me I have to believe this way, or that way.

PS:
I do like the comment about Jesus above from the Gospel of Thomas, and despite being a Gnostic Christian scripture, I do think a quote or two from it is very applicable to this topic.

"They said to him (The Apostles to Jesus): "Tell us who thou art so we may believe in thee." He
said: "You test the face of the sky and of the earth, but him who is before your face you have not known and you do not know how to test this moment."

"His disciples said to him: "Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel and they all spoke about Thee." He said to them: "You have dismissed the living one who is before you, and you have spoken about the dead."

I think it's helpful to distinguish reality from historicity. Something can be real without being bound to history or traceable in it. (I'm speaking in part as a historian, here--recall that history is another word for samsara. As F Jameson says, "history is what hurts.")

One brilliant aspect of Pure Land practice is that it is accessible to anyone regardless of their capacity to study what little we know of the ancient past or reflect on it. It's a real path, right here.

[DGA]

Pure Land devotion is common in Tibetan Buddhism. I've looked up references to Amitabha on Tibetan Buddhist websites and they refer to him as a transcendent or primordial Buddha, rather than a historical Buddha. This means that Amitabha's existed from eternal past, rather than having a literal beginning as Dharmakara. I wonder if these Tibetan Buddhists are "modernist" as well.

It would be excellent to pose this very question in the Tibetan forum, just to confirm this and to flesh it out a bit.

[sth9784]

Pure Land devotion is common in Tibetan Buddhism. I've looked up references to Amitabha on Tibetan Buddhist websites and they refer to him as a transcendent or primordial Buddha, rather than a historical Buddha. This means that Amitabha's existed from eternal past, rather than having a literal beginning as Dharmakara. I wonder if these Tibetan Buddhists are "modernist" as well.

It would be excellent to pose this very question in the Tibetan forum, just to confirm this and to flesh it out a bit.

Many Mahayana traditions have, or at least had some sort of Amitabha devotionalism at one point. Genshin who wrote the Ojoyoshu was from Tendai. Kakuban from Shingon wrote The Illuminating Secret Commentary On the Five Cakras and the Nine Syllables, and The Esoteric Meaning of Amida. I may be wrong, but I do not think Genshin, and Kakuban had identical views on Amitabha, but I do not necessarily think either of the views is wrong, or any less real.

[sth9784]

I think it's helpful to distinguish reality from historicity. Something can be real without being bound to history or traceable in it. (I'm speaking in part as a historian, here--recall that history is another word for samsara. As F Jameson says, "history is what hurts.")

I do not know if in my comment I came across as being against believing in the historicity of Amida, but just in case I would like to briefly clarify.

I have nothing against viewing Amida as a physical being, nor do I think that that view is anything lesser than other views. My issue lies completely in the approach some people take (ie you have to believe this way, or that way, or you are not true/holy enough).

[Admin_PC]

I have nothing against viewing Amida as a physical being, nor do I think that that view is anything lesser than other views. My issue lies completely in the approach some people take (ie you have to believe this way, or that way, or you are not true/holy enough).

This is pretty much how I feel.

Entertaining discussion so far.

[Serenity509]

We should keep in mind that. even if we don't interpret the story of Dharmakara literally, we are still calling out to an actual presence or being in the Nembutsu:

Buddha as such is a concept that transcends any particular embodiment, such as Shakyamuni Buddha (the historical buddha born in India), or Maitreya Buddha (the future buddha), or Vairocana Buddha (the cosmic buddha) or Amitabha Buddha (the buddha of the western paradise). Buddha exists in many forms, but all share the same “body of reality,” the same Dharmakaya, which is formless, omnipresent, all-pervading, indescribable, infinite–the everywhere-equal essence of all things, the one reality within-and-beyond all appearances.
https://whatdobuddhistsbelieve.wordpres ... s-are-one/

All Buddhas are one, so when we say the Nembutsu, we are calling out to Universal Buddhahood and calling forth our own Buddha-nature.

[sth9784]

In this day and age, in which gender equality is the norm, it's inadvisable to read the sutras 100% literally. Both the 35th Vow in the Larger Amitabha Sutra and Chapter 23 of the Lotus Sutra state that the woman who seeks birth in the Pure Land will be born as a man. Perhaps this is one reason why the Tannisho tells us to not read the scriptures 100% literally:

From our viewpoint, in all the scriptures the true and actual teachings are intermingled with the provisional and expedient. The Master's real intention was that you should discard the provisional and keep to the actual, put aside the expedient and abide by the true. You should take great care not to misunderstand the scriptures.

Also, the 21st vow promises that those born in the Pure Land will have the thirty-two physical marks of a great man. It takes a simple Google search in order to see that these marks traditionally include a retractable penis. How do we take this part literally? I am sorry if I'm offending anyone by sharing these things.

The ability to read the Sutras, and to see the meaning beyond the literal text may be one of the reasons why Buddhism has been able to flourish so long, and adapt to whichever culture it found itself in. In my opinion, to turn the Sutras into something like the "infallible" texts you find in the Abrahamic religions is to set up the cause for future stagnation. There are many amibigious passages in the Sutras which are sure to produce more than one interpretation, and since the Buddha, or the Sutra writers are no longer in human form to say what was precisely meant, who is to say who is right, and who is wrong?

[Serenity509]

In this day and age, in which gender equality is the norm, it's inadvisable to read the sutras 100% literally. Both the 35th Vow in the Larger Amitabha Sutra and Chapter 23 of the Lotus Sutra state that the woman who seeks birth in the Pure Land will be born as a man. Perhaps this is one reason why the Tannisho tells us to not read the scriptures 100% literally:

From our viewpoint, in all the scriptures the true and actual teachings are intermingled with the provisional and expedient. The Master's real intention was that you should discard the provisional and keep to the actual, put aside the expedient and abide by the true. You should take great care not to misunderstand the scriptures.

Also, the 21st vow promises that those born in the Pure Land will have the thirty-two physical marks of a great man. It takes a simple Google search in order to see that these marks traditionally include a retractable penis. How do we take this part literally? I am sorry if I'm offending anyone by sharing these things.

The ability to read the Sutras, and to see the meaning beyond the literal text may be one of the reasons why Buddhism has been able to flourish so long, and adapt to whichever culture it found itself in. In my opinion, to turn the Sutras into something like the "infallible" texts you find in the Abrahamic religions is to set up the cause for future stagnation. There are many amibigious passages in the Sutras which are sure to produce more than one interpretation, and since the Buddha, or the Sutra writers are no longer in human form to say what was precisely meant, who is to say who is right, and who is wrong?

I agree with what you are saying. It seems that this more fundamentalist or literal-minded interpretation of the sutras is mostly from Western converts who insist on forcing their own literalism onto the text. I have started a new thread specifically about this:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=20286

[DGA]

I think it's helpful to distinguish reality from historicity. Something can be real without being bound to history or traceable in it. (I'm speaking in part as a historian, here--recall that history is another word for samsara. As F Jameson says, "history is what hurts.")

I do not know if in my comment I came across as being against believing in the historicity of Amida, but just in case I would like to briefly clarify.

I have nothing against viewing Amida as a physical being, nor do I think that that view is anything lesser than other views. My issue lies completely in the approach some people take (ie you have to believe this way, or that way, or you are not true/holy enough).

Yes, I think you and I are on the same page; I was generalizing in my earlier post, and not trying to rebut what you were saying.

[DGA]

Many Mahayana traditions have, or at least had some sort of Amitabha devotionalism at one point. Genshin who wrote the Ojoyoshu was from Tendai. Kakuban from Shingon wrote The Illuminating Secret Commentary On the Five Cakras and the Nine Syllables, and The Esoteric Meaning of Amida. I may be wrong, but I do not think Genshin, and Kakuban had identical views on Amitabha, but I do not necessarily think either of the views is wrong, or any less real.

Yes, certainly. i know of one Tibetan master, the late Kalu Rinpoche, who knew of Japanese Pure Land practice in general and spoke highly of it.

It's also worth considering that Pure Land practice in one form or another is a kind of substrate to much of East Asian Buddhism. Zhiyi (Tendai Daishi) taught it as part of a well-rounded Dharma diet, to speak informally.

[Serenity509]

Shinran's idea that the purpose of the Pure Land is to immediately attain enlightenment and come back to this world as a bodhisattva is very much in line with previous Buddhist teachings. The goal of the Bodhicitta mind is to attain enlightenment as quickly as possible, so that we may then lead all other beings to enlightenment. The desire for rebirth in the Pure Land is, for Shinran, inseparable from the bodisattvha ideal. The question of whether the Pure Land is a literal place galaxies away or not is sort of beside the point from this perspective.

[Serenity509]

Does anyone think that, someday, there will be a shared statement, a peaceful consensus, between those who believe that Amitabha is a historical Buddha and those who believe that Amitabha is symbolic of Dharmakaya-as-compassion? It seems that both sides accept the most basic things, that the essence of the universe is compassionate, that It accepts you just as you are, and that It can be contacted in the Nembutsu. What need, then, is there for doctrinal infighting?

In an ultimate sense, we're all talking about the same spiritual reality, not a fiction. Maybe the reason why, at least in Jodo Shinshu, we don't practice practitionary prayer is because Amida Buddha is neither personal nor impersonal, but trans-personal.