Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:33 pm
Then you must be in the meditative state all the time without resorting to active will.Huseng wrote:
There is no active will present in the first and other jhānas, and you don't have to be enlightened to achieve jhāna.
You also get insight from reciting Buddha too.Fitness of the mind capable of cultivating insight.
I am talking about Amitabha's compassion through his vows, that sentient beings can go to Pure Land. This type of compassion can be understood as there is not separation between Amitabha's mind and sentient beings' minds. However, your text says The classical theories of karma and rebirth don't allow for such easily directed rebirths until one is at a much higher level. In other words, ordinary beings have no say in where they're reborn. At death it comes down to your karma.I don't understand what you mean here.
Can you then predict when will you be enlightened?No, because wisdom and compassion can be actively cultivated together while on the bodhisattva career.
I am sure other Buddhists are working on this also. But this will not lead sentient out of samsara as when you are enlightened.My compassion is ordinary, and my ability to aid others in a serious way depends on deference to the words of enlightened beings.
True. But you will not be able to lead them out of samsara when you are still deluded yourself.That has nothing to do with my suffering and ability to feel empathy for others.
Technically this world of ours Earth is Shakyamuni's buddha-realm (buddha-kṣetra), and it is samsara. It is in the process of transformation, so to speak. Amitabha's Pure Land is merely one of minimal, if any, suffering and defilements, but nevertheless because it is occupied by sentient beings, who exist by virtue of their defilements, it is samsara.
I already explained to you Buddha's lands are not samsara lands created by deluded beings.That doesn't negate my position that it is still samsara.
Samsara is not Sakyamuni's land, but samsara is where he chose to liberate these deluded beings.Like I said, this world is Shakyamuni's buddha-kṣetra, and though all buddhas are pure and free of defilements, those who dwell in it (i.e., me, you and all ordinary beings), are not pure.
This world is not pure because we are not pure. Pure Land sentient beings are pure.Hence, just because Amitabha is enlightened does not mean his buddha-kṣetra will be pure. Our world is Shakyamuni's buddha-kṣetra, and this world is clearly not pure.
Our world is not a Buddha-realm.You are mistaken. Again, a buddha-kṣetra is not necessarily pure just by virtue of it being a buddha's realm. Our world is a buddha-realm. It is not pure.
Buddha realms exist as tools to liberate sentient beings.
Maybe you did not. My delusion.Where did I suggest a nihilistic understanding?
True. However, I was just making a comparison of how suffering affects how people see life. People who cannot afford a proper meal and access to medical treatments will definitely want to get out of their situation. Likewise, suffering sentient beings want to be liberated if they have a chance such as Pure Land or paradise as you had believed before.Again, you don't know my background, so cease with such judgements.
This is the realm of scholars and book learning which does not reflect reasoning and true understanding of Buddhism as a whole.I said Pure Land practice is not appropriate for serious bodhisattva aspirants. The Mahāyāna was in ancient times conceived of as a vehicle of Buddhism for a few good men -- one which required extreme dedication and endurance well beyond that which was required to become an arhat. This meant that few would be expected to undertake bodhisattva aspirations as it was long road of toil and effort. To that effect I think a lot of Mahāyāna ideas are not going to be readily adopted and carried out by most people, and in my experience this is actually the case as more often than not the ideals of the Mahāyāna get little more than mere lip service much of the time.
On this special occasion, practice is essential.
I must admire this attitude. And I encourage you to get off this forum and focus on your practice or things that you have been speaking of here. Otherwise, you might be lip servicing there.So, those who have bodhisattva aspirations would bite the bullet and take suffering as an opportunity to grow and cultivate themselves for the benefit of others rather than expecting to be saved via the salvation of some greater being.
I would like to take the elevator to get there faster. If you want to take the stairs, then by all means.
And there is no separation between Buddhas' minds and sentient beings' minds. This is why the more you give, the more you will receive. What belongs to your father you will inherit. Likewise with Amitabha who is enlightened, he liberates sentient beings through Pure Land. And through reciting Amitabha, his merits and purity will develop in you.
Different strokes for different folks.
No doubt. But I am sure your suffering affects you in a different way from the poor, sick, and hungry. And therefore it affects how you see the world [Dharma and dharmas] differently from them.Suffering is still disagreeable sensation to the poor, hungry and sick, just as much as it is to the spoiled kid who laments being unable to buy a new Playstation. The former might receive more pity than the latter, but the experience is still disagreeable sensation no matter how you look at it.