Link I posted was a Chinese school following in the traditions of Tan Luan, Tao Cho, and Shan Tao; not in the tradition of the syncretic mix of T'ianT'ai & Ch'an that came to characterize Chinese Pure Land of the Song dynasty and later (a shift that occurred due to the persecution of the late T'ang dynasty). Thus it's more in line with Honen; whose school of Pure Land (incidentally) still has its clergy take Bodhisattva Vows & recites the 4 main Bodhisattva Vows as part of the daily practice (hence, unfair to single out one country as following Bodhisattva Bhumis). That being said it's probably the Ch'an and TianTai syncretism that you like; which is understandable, but it's not really the original form of Chinese Pure Land. As far as Shinran goes, I'm not going to defend him here, but he says a lot of things that can be easily misunderstood.JKhedrup wrote:Yes I clearly have to learn more about the PL traditions. I have read some of Shinran's writings and do not find them very attractive, where as what I have read of (the limited amount available in English) on Chinese Pure Land seems to have a lot more in common with what I have learnt in the classical Mahayana presentation of the Gelug and Kagyu schools. Of course, I don't know my Honen from my Shinran and so am definitely lacking in an understanding of the variety within Japanese PL.
Going back to the main line of thought going on in the thread: I do not know of a single school of East Asian Buddhism that denies the claim of the Vajrayana/Esoteric practices having the goal of Buddhahood in this very body. There is at least one person on this thread trying to create controversy where there is none. If any one wants Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra references for justification of taking Mahayana/Vajrayana sutras over the Agamas, just crack open any of the definitive sutras from those schools - such as the Lotus Sutra, Avatamsaka, or the Vairocana Sutra.