What is the Pure Land Traditions assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

[Tenzintharpa]

I am a Gelug practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and understand Tsongkhapa’s view but am a little confused on the different views of conventional phenomena held by other schools of Buddhism.
According to the Pure Land Traditions, does conventional phenomena:
A) Exist as Illusion, existing only as a projection of the mind, (literally unreal).
B) Exist as Illusion ‘like’; real but existing in an ethereal manner, lacking any inherent true essence; nominally existent.
C) Does the Pure Land Tradition deny the existence of conventional phenomena and/or matter?

Gelug presentation
The Buddha often described life as dream-like but he never asserted that life was a dream or that phenomenon did not actually exist.

Observed phenomenon don’t exist as mere images, projections or visions in the mind but rather exists as separate entities from the mind. The mind and matter are two separate things. Matter is separate from the mind that cognizes and dominates it. And although observed phenomenon are not simply created by a mind, their ultimate mode of existence is dependent upon the mind, so the mind doesn’t create the matter but the matter is dependent on the mind that imputes it as the imputer. Therefore, their mode of existence is separate from the imputer but their existence is dependent upon the imputer. Their mode of existence is separate but their existence is dependent. Nothing can exist independently from the mind which perceives it. ~ Dalai Lama

Thanks all

[Admin_PC]

To be perfectly honest, the teaching of the existence or nonexistence of phenomena is not central to Pure Land doctrine. Conflicts between Mind Only Pure Land and other forms are more about presentation than actual doctrine - many teachers focused on teaching laypeople in the simplest way possible to avoid confusion. If there was going to be a definitive statement regarding phenomena, it would probably be found in the Buddha Pronounces the Sūtra of the Pratyutpanna Buddha Sammukhāvasthita Samādhi (one of the first Pure Land sutras translated into Chinese):

The Buddha said, “Very good, Bhadrapāla. Because the medium is clear, the reflection is clear. Likewise, if one wishes to see a Buddha, one with a pure mind will be able to see. When one sees Him, one can ask questions, and He will give a reply. Having heard the teachings, one will be exultant and think: ‘Where does this Buddha come from and where am I going? As I think of this Buddha, He comes from nowhere and I am going nowhere. As I think of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm, these three realms are formed by my mind. I can see what I think of. The mind forms a Buddha for itself to see; the mind is the Buddha mind. As my mind forms a Buddha, my mind is the Buddha; my mind is the Tathāgata; my mind is my body.’

This quote is somewhat reflected in the following passage from the Visualization Sutra (one of the 3 main Pure Land sutras):

The Buddha told Ānanda and Vaidehī, “After achieving this vision, one should next visualize that Buddha. Why? A Buddha-Tathāgata’s body is the dharma realm, which pervades the thinking mind of all sentient beings. Therefore, when one visualizes a Buddha, one’s mind has a Buddha’s thirty-two physical marks and eighty excellent characteristics. The mind forms a Buddha, and the mind is the Buddha. The ocean of Saṁbuddhas is formed by one’s thinking mind. Therefore, one should single-mindedly focus on and visualize that Buddha, the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyak-Saṁbuddha.

[rory]

I am a Gelug practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and understand Tsongkhapa’s view but am a little confused on the different views of conventional phenomena held by other schools of Buddhism.
According to the Pure Land Traditions, does conventional phenomena:
A) Exist as Illusion, existing only as a projection of the mind, (literally unreal).
B) Exist as Illusion ‘like’; real but existing in an ethereal manner, lacking any inherent true essence; nominally existent.
C) Does the Pure Land Tradition deny the existence of conventional phenomena and/or matter?

Gelug presentation
The Buddha often described life as dream-like but he never asserted that life was a dream or that phenomenon did not actually exist.

Observed phenomenon don’t exist as mere images, projections or visions in the mind but rather exists as separate entities from the mind. The mind and matter are two separate things. Matter is separate from the mind that cognizes and dominates it. And although observed phenomenon are not simply created by a mind, their ultimate mode of existence is dependent upon the mind, so the mind doesn’t create the matter but the matter is dependent on the mind that imputes it as the imputer. Therefore, their mode of existence is separate from the imputer but their existence is dependent upon the imputer. Their mode of existence is separate but their existence is dependent. Nothing can exist independently from the mind which perceives it. ~ Dalai Lama

Thanks all

Gassho; the disconnect is that Tibetan Buddhism has two philosophical schools: Yogacara and Indian Madhyamika. Tibet broke away from the intellectual currents of East Asia to develop it's own tradition. China developed new interpretations specifically the tathagata-garbha the originally pure, enlightened mind which all sentient beings have and which is the 'embryo' of Buddhahoodand schools which disseminated this thought throughout East Asia. I explain a bit below I hope clearly..,

In China tathagata-garbha thought would develop into a major Mahayana tradition ranking beside those of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
Asvagosa's The Awakening of Faith a Chinese apocryphon

subsumes the alaya-vijnana concept within that of the tathagata-garbha by redefining the former as the none other than the one pure mind as percieved through the unenlightened consciousness.

Stone. p. 6, 8
Basically

Huan-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind........The mind is original pure and true while phenomena are in contrast unreal, arising only as the mind is perceived through human ignorance

Stone p. 7 Original Enlightenment The Flower-Garland (Hua-Yen, Kegon) school indeed incorporates Pure Land, a nice example is the idea that when one person performs Nenbutsu it is the same as everyone doing it viz Ryonin founder of the Yuzu-Nembutsu school; One in all and All in one...to be pithy.
The Tiantai/Tendai school which also incorporates Pure Land (all Japanese Pure Land schools derived from Tendai) is different it maintains

that all dharmas manifest the true aspect of reality....

n the words of Zhi-yi/Chih-I the founder of the Tiantai school One may not say neither that the one mind is prior and all dharmas posterior nor that all dharmas are prior and the mind is posterior....All one can say is that the mind is all dharmas and all dharmas are the mind

p.8 Stone For Japanese Pure Land schools in particular you will see affirmations of the Pure Land of your mind and also an existent Western Pure Land.

Finally Ch'an/Zen schools and Hosso follow Yogacara philosophy so they'd say the Pure Land is a projection of your mind.

Is this helpful? I love these kind of discussions, now I need to reread the Gelug school's understanding!
gassho
Rory

East Asian Pure Land followers are free to philosophically interpret

[Admin_PC]

I should probably add the following:

Before and during Honen's time on Mt. Hiei, a commentary on the Kuan wu-liang-shou ching attributed to the Chinese T'ien-T'ai master Chih-i was held as the orthodox interpretation of this important sutra. Honen, however, was not satisfied with this commentary and came to use Shan-tao's which was viewed as unorthodox at the time.

In 1021, the Fourteenth Patriarch of the Chinese T'ien-T'ai school, Chi-rei (960-1028), wrote his Kuan-chin-shou Miao-tsun-shou which was a commentary on Chih-i's Commentary on the Meditation Sutra. Since that time, it became customary to read Chih-i's commentary in light of Chi-rei's commentary. This custom became orthodoxy on Mt. Hiei.

If we compare Chih-i's commentary (from the Chi-rei view) and Shan-tao's commentary, three basic differences emerge. The first concerns human beings. T'ien-T'ai's view is that the nature of all sentient beings and buddhas is the same, while Shan-tao's view is opposite. Shan-tao felt human nature was always in opposition to the nature of buddhas. The second difference concerns the role of the nembutsu. T'ien-T'ai insists on the contemplative aspect of the nembutsu through simply holding it in one's mind, while Shan-tao stressed the practical use of the nembutsu through frequent recitation. The third difference concerns the buddha body and buddha lands. T'ien-T'ai speaks of Amida Buddha and the Pure Land as elements of one's consciousness to be realized in the mind. Shan-tao, on the other hand, spoke of the substantial existence of both Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. In the end, as Honen became aware of the differences, he abandoned the T'ien-T'ai view and appropriated Shan-tao's which had been rejected by the community on Mt. Hiei.

Incidentally, the concept of the Pure Land only being a state of mind, is actually warned against in schools of Mind Only Pure Land, as can be seen from the following quote:

On this point, see also the words of the eminent Zen Master Chu Hung (16th century):

Some people say that the Pure Land is nothing but mind, that there is no Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss beyond the trillions of worlds of the cosmos. This talk of mind-only has its source in the words of the sutras, and it is true, not false. But those who quote it in this sense are misunderstanding its meaning.

Mind equals object: there are no objects beyond mind. Objects equal mind: there is no mind beyond objects. Since objects are wholly mind, why must we cling to mind and dismiss objects? Those who dismiss objects when they talk of mind have not comprehended mind.

That's why I say it's more a matter of presentation than a serious doctrinal difference.

[rory]

Hmm what does Mind-Only mean that's rather confusing, is it Yogacara where everything is a projection of the viewer's mind or the entirely different
Mind from the Flower-Garland/Kegon school which is the Dharmakaya.

We should really ask Jikai who is translating Tendai texts about what you posted and the Tendai view of the Pure Land.

Another issue is of course Original Enlightenment, meaning we because of our Buddha-nature are enlightened but obscurations mar this. This was a hugely influential philosophy in Japan and is present in Tendai, Honen rejected this and felt we had a seed of Buddha-nature which had to be nutured to develop, Nichiren thought the same way.


Finally a huge difference from Tibetan thought is that the Lotus Sutra, which states that all beings have buddha-nature, the eternity of the Buddha, and a horizontal path to Buddhahood is really unknown to most Tibetans. you have to go eons purifying your karma..for example if you had a pet dog the best you could do for them is pray for it's human rebirth whilst East Asian Buddhists have no problems praying and conducting funeral services for their pets' birth directly to the Pure Land.

gassho
Rory

[Tenzintharpa]

Finally a huge difference from Tibetan thought is that the Lotus Sutra, which states that all beings have buddha-nature, the eternity of the Buddha, and a horizontal path to Buddhahood is really unknown to most Tibetans.gassho
Rory

This is inaccurate.
Thanks for sharing...prayers.
Tharpa

[Matt J]

China did not invent the Tathagatgarbha. There are Indian sources for this, thus the Sanskrit term "thathagatagarbha."

Gassho; the disconnect is that Tibetan Buddhism has two philosophical schools: Yogacara and Indian Madhyamika. Tibet broke away from the intellectual currents of East Asia to develop it's own tradition. China developed new interpretations specifically the tathagata-garbha the originally pure, enlightened mind which all sentient beings have and which is the 'embryo' of Buddhahoodand schools which disseminated this thought throughout East Asia. I explain a bit below I hope clearly..,

[Malcolm]

for example if you had a pet dog the best you could do for them is pray for it's human rebirth whilst East Asian Buddhists have no problems praying and conducting funeral services for their pets' birth directly to the Pure Land.

People do all kinds of crazy and useless things in the name of religion.

[Admin_PC]

Hmm what does Mind-Only mean that's rather confusing, is it Yogacara where everything is a projection of the viewer's mind or the entirely different Mind from the Flower-Garland/Kegon school which is the Dharmakaya.

Good question.
Whalen Lai goes into the topic a bit in Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies Series edited by Paul Williams.
Scroll down to section 67, page 153 (page 161 of the pdf) for some background:
https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpres ... vol5_5.pdf
I'm not sure everything he states there is 100% correct, but he does give quite a bit of background.

Interestingly, the "realization that the three worlds are of the mind only" referenced by the author is mentioned explicitly in the Pratyutpanna quote above. Since Honen & Shan-tao don't really talk that much about this - or opt to stay away from the teaching in order to avoid confusion, I tend to take the sutra's stance on these issues, which would be more in-line with the "Indian view" mentioned by Whalen Lai. I also rely quite a bit on Vasubandhu, as his Upadeśa on the Sūtra of Amitāyus Buddha is used quite universally in the Pure Land schools. So it is possible to view both views as being (mostly) consistent, while sticking strictly within the bounds of Pure Land doctrines.

[rory]

Finally a huge difference from Tibetan thought is that the Lotus Sutra, which states that all beings have buddha-nature, the eternity of the Buddha, and a horizontal path to Buddhahood is really unknown to most Tibetans.gassho
Rory

This is inaccurate.
Thanks for sharing...prayers.
Tharpa

Okay I see the Gelug school belongs to Prasangika Madhyamika; Here is a nice clear discussion of Tibetan Buddhism and East Asian Mahayana's differing understanding of tathagata-garbha. This will give us the tools to have a productive exchange of ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-na ... n_Buddhism
The Tibetan school since it is esoteric, Vajrayana does have the quick 'horizontal' path to buddhahood for the elite who practice high level Vajrayana. I should have made clear that in East Asian Mahayana that buddhahood is more democratic and available horizontally to all sentient beings and non-sentient beings via the Chinese interpretation of tathatagata-garbha It is illustrated in Ch. 12 of the Lotus Sutra by the immediate realization of Buddhahood by the Dragon King's daughter:

At that time, Shariputra spoke to the Dragon Girl, saying, "You claim quick attainment to the Supreme Path. This is difficult to believe. Why? The body of a woman is filthy and not a vessel for the Dharma. How can you attain to the Supreme Bodhi? The Buddha Path is remote and distant. Only after one has passed through limitless aeons, diligently bearing suffering and accumulating one�s conduct, perfecting one�s cultivation of all Paramitas, can one then attain realization. What is more, a woman�s body has Five Obstacles: one, she cannot become a Brahma heaven king; two, she cannot become Shakra; three, she cannot become a Mara king; four, she cannot become a Wheel Turning Sage king; five, she cannot become a Buddha. How can a woman quickly realize Buddhahood?"

Now the Dragon Girl had a precious pearl, its worth equal to the entire system of three thousand great thousand worlds, which she took before the Buddha and presented to him. The Buddha immediately accepted it. The Dragon Girl then said to Wisdom Accumulation and the venerable Shariputra, "I just offered up this precious pearl and the World Honored One accepted it. Was that quick or not?"

"Very quick!" They answered.

The girl said, "With your spiritual powers, watch as I become a Buddha even more quickly than that!" At that moment, the entire assembly saw the Dragon Girl suddenly transform into a man and perfect the Bodhisattva conduct. Instantly she went off to the south, to the world without filth, where, seated on a jeweled lotus, she accomplished Equal and Proper Enlightenment and embodied the Thirty two Marks and Eighty Minor Characteristics. There, for the sake of all living beings throughout the ten directions, she proceeded to proclaim the wonderful Dharma.

http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/reso ... otus12.htm

You can see this below in my signature quote from Zhiyi the founder of the Tiantai school who asserts that women attain buddhahood in their female bodies; that all are equal.

East Asian Mahayana also asserts the buddhahood of insentient beings:

Chi-Tsang (549-623) of the San-Lun school argued that insentient beings have the Buddha nature as well....However the Chinese thinker most closely connected with the idea that insentient beings have the Buddha nature is Chan-jan [Zhanran the 6th Tiantai patriarch].....

Stone p. 29 The theory is that because self and the outer world are nondual, when the practitioner manifests buddhahood so will the person's environment.

anyway fascinating discussion: In East Asian Pure Land, the common thought is Amitabha's and Guan-Yin's massive karmic transfer allow sentient/nonsentient beings to go from this life, body, hell, etc to immediately and directly go tothe Pure Land.
gassho
Rory

[Malcolm]

The Tibetan school since it is esoteric, Vajrayana does have the quick 'horizontal' path to buddhahood for the elite who practice high level Vajrayana.

Everybody practices high level Vajrayāna in Tibetan Buddhism.

[rory]

[quote="Admin_PC"]
Whalen Lai goes into the topic a bit in Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies Series edited by Paul Williams.
Scroll down to section 67, page 153 (page 161 of the pdf) for some background:
https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpres ... vol5_5.pdf
I'm not sure everything he states there is 100% correct, but he does give quite a bit of background.

Okay I read that page and beginning argument., thanks! Mind-Only refers to the Flower-Garland School (Avatamsaka/Kegon) he calls it in Sanskrit Cittamatra He calls Yogacara (Fa-hsiang/Hosso) : Vijnaptimatra Consciousness-Only

If everything is from the universal Mind, then of course, Amitabha's Western Pure Land of Bliss, in "Huan-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind....." so Sukhavati is an expression of the Dharmakaya.

gassho
Rory

[DGA]

Whalen Lai goes into the topic a bit in Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies Series edited by Paul Williams.
Scroll down to section 67, page 153 (page 161 of the pdf) for some background:
https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpres ... vol5_5.pdf
I'm not sure everything he states there is 100% correct, but he does give quite a bit of background.

Okay I read that page and beginning argument., thanks! Mind-Only refers to the Flower-Garland School (Avatamsaka/Kegon) he calls it in Sanskrit Cittamatra He calls Yogacara (Fa-hsiang/Hosso) : Vijnaptimatra Consciousness-Only

If everything is from the universal Mind, then of course, Amitabha's Western Pure Land of Bliss, in "Huan-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind....." so Sukhavati is an expression of the Dharmakaya.

gassho
Rory

Cittamatra and Yogacara are philosophical positions or, better, views. Hosso was a Buddhist school, as was Kegon. Avatamsaka, as you well know, is a sutra.

A sutra is not a school; a school is not a view; a sutra is not a view.

Related discussion:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 33#p374727

[明安 Myoan]

for example if you had a pet dog the best you could do for them is pray for it's human rebirth whilst East Asian Buddhists have no problems praying and conducting funeral services for their pets' birth directly to the Pure Land.

People do all kinds of crazy and useless things in the name of religion.

This is not a very helpful comment.
In Chinese Pure Land, it's believed that animals too can hear Amitabha's name, focus on it, and thus be reborn in the Pure Land upon death.
Since Chinese Pure Land also teaches that there's a period of up to 49 days where one's consciousness may still be clinging to this world and awaiting rebirth in the Pure Land, this may be the reason for funeral services seeking to liberate the pet.

[DGA]

Finally a huge difference from Tibetan thought is that the Lotus Sutra, which states that all beings have buddha-nature, the eternity of the Buddha, and a horizontal path to Buddhahood is really unknown to most Tibetans. you have to go eons purifying your karma..

This is just wrong. The Lotus Sutra is well known and canonical in the Tibetan tradition. Tibetans just don't follow the (implausible and unconvincing) theory of five periods that Zhiyi invented. As has already been pointed out to you, Tibetans have made many nuanced and detailed analyses of Buddha-nature over the years.

Dzogchen is a horizontal path to Buddhahood that is well known and celebrated among Tibetan Buddhists. You would do well to learn about this.

for example if you had a pet dog the best you could do for them is pray for it's human rebirth whilst East Asian Buddhists have no problems praying and conducting funeral services for their pets' birth directly to the Pure Land.

This is, again, simply wrong. Familiarize yourself with the practice of p'howa before responding to this post.

[rory]

Jan Nattier ( a current visiting scholar at Berkely wrote this a while back for Tricycle:

When we came to the Lotus Sutra , however, I noticed a decided change. Though it has been tremendously influential in East Asia, the Lotus is rarely studied by Tibetan Buddhists. As we worked our way through the text, Thubten [a Tibetan geshe] looked baffled, even worried. At one point, he told me that he had gone to the library to check out the Tibetan version of the sutra, for he thought he must not be understanding the English version correctly. Finally one day in class he simply shook his head in amazement and exclaimed, “I can’t believe the Buddha would say such things!”

But at the same time, it seemed quite clear to him that theLotus Sutra conflicted with much of what he, as a Mahayana Buddhist monk, had been taught

it is this, I suspect, that was the primary cause of Thubten’s consternation. Although Tibetan Buddhism has largely jettisoned arhatship as a valid goal, it has maintained a strong commitment to the notion of spiritual cultivation. To hear the Buddha proclaim that every practitioner is destined for Buddhahood—even those who, like the legendary betrayer of the dharma, Devadatta, are guilty of heinous crimes—would seem to subvert the very foundation of the long and demanding practice of the bodhisattva path.

But there is more at stake here than the individual’s spiritual practice, for rejection of the “progress” model has an institutional corollary as well. A progress philosophy necessarily entails a hierarchical community structure.....Leap philosophies, by contrast, tend to level such spiritual hierarchies.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/posting.php? ... 60&t=24546

I know about Phowa; so animals go directly to the Pure Land as they are? In Tibetan Buddhism do sentient and non-sentient beings have Buddha-nature? As In East Asian Mahayana they do. In Tibetan Buddhism are all equal? as the great Zhi-yi put it, the Lotus Sutra is the teaching of great equality.
gassho
Rory

[rory]

for example if you had a pet dog the best you could do for them is pray for it's human rebirth whilst East Asian Buddhists have no problems praying and conducting funeral services for their pets' birth directly to the Pure Land.

People do all kinds of crazy and useless things in the name of religion.

This is not a very helpful comment.
In Chinese Pure Land, it's believed that animals too can hear Amitabha's name, focus on it, and thus be reborn in the Pure Land upon death.
Since Chinese Pure Land also teaches that there's a period of up to 49 days where one's consciousness may still be clinging to this world and awaiting rebirth in the Pure Land, this may be the reason for funeral services seeking to liberate the pet.

Malcolm makes an ad hominem statement as he has no argument. In Chinese as well as Japanese Buddhism there are services for non-sentient beings as well. I doubt if he has an answer for that, as Tibetan philosophy is situated in Yogacara and Indian pre Lotus Sutra Madhyamika
gassho
Rory