Background of Pure Land practitioners

Post Reply
dsaly1969
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Background of Pure Land practitioners

Post by dsaly1969 »

I'm curious as to the diversity of Pure Land thought on this forum. Like many my first exposure to Pure Land Buddhism was Shin Buddhism through the Buddhist Churches of America. I grew up in southeast Los Angeles near Orange County so both the Orange County Buddhist Church and Koyasan were within close proximity (as well as Higashi Honganji. At OCBC I was exposed to Bright Dawn Center formerly known as Kubose Dharma Legacy which promotes the nonsectarian Buddhist teachings of Gyomay Kubose, founding minister of the Buddhist Temple of Chicago. I did Ti Sarana through them. I did a very short foray into SGI and then spent some time in Rissho Kosei-kai. I still have high regard for BCA, Bright Dawn, and RKK. I looked into more "meditative" schools but find I do not have the discipline and insight necessary to work those paths as a working father and husband. I require a Buddhism "for the masses" so to speak.

Living in southern California allowed me exposure to a variety of Buddhism so I have been fortunate to also have been exposed to some of the Chinese and Taiwanese schools. My appreciation of Pure Land Buddhism has been expanded by exposure to the teachings of the Chinese Pure Land school through Amida Society, Dharma Seal Temple in Rosemead, Amida Society in Temple City, and the Nienfo Hall at Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights. By no means am I an expert on Pure Land thought (my focus is to work on my tendency to be impatient and quick to anger - no violence fortunately but quick and sharp of tongue which is also hurtful). Exposure to Buddhadharma has helped me "become a better person" slowly but surely.

I have found the Ten-Recitation method proposed by Ven. Master Chin Kung to be a very helpful discipline for me. What is your background and what has been helpful to you?
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Background of Pure Land practitioners

Post by steveb1 »

Raised Catholic in both the pre-Vatican II/post-Vatican II Church, watched the changes. Twelve years of Catholic education. Was an altar boy, had an aunt who was a nun, a cousin who was a priest. Left the Church after about 28 years in it.

Discovered Jung, Eastern mysticism, Joseph Campbell, critical biblical studies. The tug of the East made Buddhism intellectually attractive to me - the Mahayana being the most attractive of all. Many years of interest but no personal commitment.

Then I read an article by Shin priest Jose Tirado -

http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/14/ ... ns-i-know/

... and I was impressed by the truth and compassionate tolerance of the essay. This in turn caused me to study Pure Land - mostly on the Web, then with books - and especially the Jodo Shinshu tradition from which Tirado was writing. It grabbed me like nothing else ever had: so simple, so compelling, so logical, so profound. It wasn't long before I surrendered to Amida's embrace. A raft from the Other Shore had glided to my feet, and Amida's own Other Power pulled me aboard.
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: Background of Pure Land practitioners

Post by Serenity509 »

Thank you for starting this thread. I was raised in the Catholic faith as well. I was initially drawn to Buddhism, among other reasons, for the purpose of learning how to more realistically and skillfully deal with the sufferings of life.

I came to the realization that when the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, it wasn't just about ending the cycle of death and rebirth, but about learning how to better live peacefully and joyfully in the here and now as well. The Buddha never promised that, through his teachings, you would never suffer in life, but he did point the way to living a more meaningful, joyful, and peaceful life despite life's sufferings. There's been a great deal of literature written about this and Dharma talks given about this, of how the Four Noble Truths apply to one's daily life.

Also, I came to understand the Bodhisattva ideal as not just hoping to become a Buddha after death so that we can come back to this world as a spiritual being, but that it's also about wanting to alleviate the sufferings of others in the here and now. The engaged Buddhism of Thich Nhat Hanh, for example, is influenced by the Bodhisattva ideal. Engaged Buddhism helped me to see that a Buddhist can be active in the world rather than withdrawn from it, as Buddhists are often characterized as being.

I first visited a Buddhist temple in 2011. I was a new husband and father, working a stressful job, and looking for ways to find peace in life. The people there were very nice, but I stopped going after a few weeks, one reason being that the Pure Land seemed too much (to my uninformed mind) like Heaven and the Nembutsu seemed too much (to my uninformed mind) like Christian prayer. It wasn't until four years later that I gave Buddhism a second chance, for the same reasons I sought it out in the first place.

Our local Sensei in my new town is from Hiroshima, Japan and his family has ministered temples for several generations. When I first started attending services at his temple, I showed him that I was reading Alfred Bloom's commentary on the Tannisho, something which he approved of, saying that he likes Alfred Bloom. So far, everything I've heard him teach has been consistent with or compatible with Alfred Bloom's writings, even though he's a Jodo Shinshu priest from Japan, rather than a Western convert.

I've often come on this forum to defend modern understandings of Jodo Shinshu teachings, one reason being that our local Sensei is such a genuinely decent man, and I refuse to believe that what he teaches is unacceptable. I don't claim to represent him and I'm not an authority when it comes to anything, but I have defended him and what he teaches out of a genuine appreciation and admiration of him and the good his temple has done for my life.
dsaly1969
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: Background of Pure Land practitioners

Post by dsaly1969 »

Serenity509 wrote: Our local Sensei in my new town is from Hiroshima, Japan and his family has ministered temples for several generations. When I first started attending services at his temple, I showed him that I was reading Alfred Bloom's commentary on the Tannisho, something which he approved of, saying that he likes Alfred Bloom. So far, everything I've heard him teach has been consistent with or compatible with Alfred Bloom's writings, even though he's a Jodo Shinshu priest from Japan, rather than a Western convert.

I've often come on this forum to defend modern understandings of Jodo Shinshu teachings, one reason being that our local Sensei is such a genuinely decent man, and I refuse to believe that what he teaches is unacceptable. I don't claim to represent him and I'm not an authority when it comes to anything, but I have defended him and what he teaches out of a genuine appreciation and admiration of him and the good his temple has done for my life.
Which temple are you attending? I am sympathetic to your stance as my understanding of Pure Land Buddhism also tends towards a modernist understanding. However, I also used to post in the same tone as you do and achieving much of the same reaction. Consider that anytime one undertakes to "defend" teachings it creates an atmosphere of disharmony and causes those with traditionalist understandings to become defensive. Also traditionalists DO represent the orthodox view of Pure Land Buddhism (so you will never "win" a sutra debate with them and one misses the point when you do that) and traditionalist understandings have much to teach us even if we might initially approach the teachings from another direction. Modernist understandings MUST by necessity first have some understanding of a more "traditionalist" perspectives. This is why I recommend "both/and" rather than "either/or" (consider it a practice of deep hearing).

Once I stopped grasping so much onto my perceptions of the teachings and opened to other voices, it did enrich the dharma for me. I am now influenced by a broad array of Pure Land Buddhist thinkers including traditionalists and modernists and Taiwanese/Chinese schools. I don't present what I think as "correct" for others but understandings which seem to work for me right now (and I am open to being wrong). I got some books at Amida Society today, mostly by Ven. Master Chin Kung, and look forward to diving into them.

For myself I grew up Mormon but never bought into it. Actually first ran across Pure Land Buddhism through Alfred Bloom's books as well even before I went to Orange County Buddhist Church. I think I got it at Bodhi Tree bookstore which is long since closed.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Background of Pure Land practitioners

Post by DGA »

I'm assuming I'm not the only one who is a bit confused by the use of the word "modernist" in this forum. I started a thread to clarify this--what do you all mean by "modernist" in a Pure Land context?

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=21023

Namu Amidabutsu
Post Reply

Return to “Pure Land”