Deathbed Experiences of the Pure Land

The Watercooler
21

Please keep in mind that I don’t believe in Amida and the Pure Land because of reports involving deathbed experiences of Amida and the Pure Land. Shinran, the founder of the Jodo Shinshu sect of Pure Land Buddhism, regarded deathbed visions of the Pure Land as unimportant, and he never claimed to have one himself.

This is because Shinran taught that our future rebirth into the Pure Land is assured the moment we first say the Nembutsu with a sincere mind. Death can come at any time, when we least expect it, so deathbed experiences are not a reliable source of personal assurance for our rebirth into the Pure Land.

I believe in Amida and the Pure Land because of how well Shinran explained Amida as Dharma-body itself, rather than a literal flesh and blood Buddha from eons before the Big Bang, and the Pure Land as the formless realm of Nirvana.

Shinran went beyond the literal meaning of the Pure Land sutras in order to explain their ultimate meaning, just as the Buddha distinguished between relative truth and ultimate truth:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.6b_Neyyattha_Nitattha_S_a2.3.5-6_piya.pdf

At the same time, I don’t reject reports of deathbed visions of Amida and the Pure Land as invalid. These reports are something interesting to read and hear about, but I don’t base my personal beliefs on them, especially because of how easily that can devolve into superstition.

Guided by the teaching of Shinran Shonin, we shall listen to the compassionate calling of Amida Tathagata and recite the Nembutsu. While always reflecting on ourselves, amidst our feelings of regret and joy, we shall live expressing our gratitude without depending on petitionary prayer and superstition.
Teachings | Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha (Nishihongwanji)

22

So wait, I’m confused, I was raised christian and I left the faith when I was 18, and then finally found the EBTs 5-6 years later (during which I was an atheist/agnostic depending on the day). None of that matters except what your describing sounds just like the christianity I left all those years ago. All it takes is the sincere belief in jesus christ and then you’re locked in, going to heaven. I mean, with all the differences between buddhist sects, if you try you can find an overarching commonality with which you can use to still call them all buddhism, and just different sects of buddhism. What your describing is using buddhist terms, and calling something buddha, but, it’s not buddhism right? I mean not really. Buddhism is just a word we use as an umbrella term to cover all these different sects that have this general commonality. As soon as you leave that commonality, the definition of the word buddhism no longer applies. That’s like calling leaves rocks and then saying a tree is a mountain. A word has a set definition and it doesn’t make sense to change it so you can fit something within it that has nothing to do with it. Why call leaves rocks when you can just call them leaves, no one is going care either way. What you’ve just described can call itself buddhism, but it seems it would just be better to call it something else, just because it doesn’t fit the commonality of what we call buddhism. It’s not a big deal or anything, it just isn’t buddhism. Finding the overarching commonality may be difficult, but as soon as you bring in eternal salvation after death with only a sincere belief in something, well now you’ve wandered miles away from that commonality. I’m not attacking your belief system and I don’t want to, only that the label used to refer to it doesn’t fit. At the very most, it’s like how a word has more than one definition, the first definition would be buddhism as we know it, and then completely separate and pretty much unrelated would be another definition which is what you’re talking about. Regardless of what word you use, the two definitions are completely unrelated, it’s a homonym at most.

2 Likes
23

Well, given your Xian background, consider Xianity (I sent this as a PM to Kensho a while ago, maybe it’s of use here as well).

There’s Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) teaching whatever he’s teaching. Then, you have the Early Church, and Paul and others writing letters and so forth. Then, you have a larger Xian community composing the Gospels, and time passes. Constantine, a powerful secular ruler, comes to support Xianity, and there’s a missionary explosion. Eventually, we end up with the Eastern Orthodox & Catholic Churches, and then later the Protestant versions. Finally, we end up with e.g. Mormonism, Swedenborgianism, and other New Religious Movements.

Buddhism demonstrates a similar trajectory with the Buddha’s direct teaching happening first, except in this case the oral tradition in India preserved so much more than the early Xians did. Then you have the Early Sangha, collating and organizing various Suttas, and time passes. Asoka, a powerful secular ruler, comes to support Buddhism, and there’s a missionary explosion. Eventually, we end up with the early Schools of Buddhism. Finally, we end up with e.g. Mahayana, Vajrayana, and so on.

Now: just as with e.g. Mormonism, which claims to adhere to & follow the teachings of the historical Jesus while at the same time using their own literature to overwrite the early doctrines & teachings, so too Mahayana alleges adherence to the historical doctrines while using their own literature to overwrite them.

So when did the burgeoning Xian dogmas overwrite Rabbi Yeshua? Was it Paul, or the Gospel authors, or the shenanigans during Constantine’s reign… it gets complicated where to draw the line.

But I think we can clearly say that Mormons are not Xian; they have been & are (not to put it delicately) writing Xian fan fiction. So, too, Mahayana. Both offer lip service to the early teachings, both suggest that those early teachings are still valid, and both nevertheless end up doing their own thing anyway.

Does Theravada fall prey to this criticism? Well, they have about the same relationship to the Buddha as the Eastern Orthodox Church has to rabbi Yeshua. Complicated stuff.

3 Likes
24

Pure Land Buddhism is the largest school of Buddhism in East Asia, especially in China and Japan.

Pure Land Buddhism has roots in ancient Indian Buddhism, rather than being an aberration of it:

The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~ckeng/doc/Nattier_PureLand.pdf

While Amida might seem like a theistic god, he isn’t a creator, since the universe has always existed in some form, and he doesn’t answer petitionary prayer. Amida is, according to Shinran, Dharma-body itself or the Buddha-nature in all things:

Amida Buddha, The Central Symbol of Pure Land Teaching

And it’s not as simple as just recite Amida’s name and that’s the end of it. Trusting in Amida for one’s future Buddhahood, if sincere, results in a change of heart and a change of life, out of gratitude for Amida’s compassion:

It is deplorable that you have told people to abandon themselves to their hearts’ desires and to do anything they want. One must seek to cast off the evil of this world and to cease doing wretched deeds; this is what it means to reject the world and to live the Nembutsu. When people who may have said the Nembutsu for many years abuse others in word or deed, there is no indication of rejecting this world.
16 - The Collected Works of Shinran

25

I take no offense to this at all. I tend not to focus on near-death experiences, because they seem to suggest the existence of a permanent self that survives the material body, which might contradict what the Buddha taught.

Shinran, like Tan-Luan and Shandao, understood the Pure Land to be the formless realm of Nirvana, and therefore referred to rebirth into the Pure Land as the inconceivable “birth of non-birth,” just as the Buddha referred to Nirvana as “the unborn.”

If someone does happen to be persuaded by near-death experiences, however, they should hear about Buddhists who’ve had them, because that’s at least preferable to joining some other religion instead because of their accounts of near-death experiences.

26

The article does say that it has its roots in buddhism, but of course it does; it has its roots in buddhism and is also an aberration of it. Miracle Whip has its roots in mayonnaise, but it’s not mayonnaise and is definitely an aberration. That article basically says the entire religion is based on some visions someone had during meditation, which is fine, but that’s certainly not what the buddha taught, and not really buddhism as a result. When people say buddhism, we mean the teachings of the gotama. My point isn’t about what’s true or false, just that it isn’t the teachings of gotama, and therefore not really buddhism. Even Mayahana still has a commonality where I at least understand people calling it buddhism. But this pure land religion, it just strays miles away from the teachings of gotama, so too, miles away from buddhism. The further you get from gotama’s teachings, the further you get from buddhism, and eventually to where it isn’t buddhism anymore, regardless of its roots; and pure land crossed that line a good distance ago.

27

I’m surprised that people are still mystified by visions. People pray to uber-people, ants to uber-ants, donkeys to uber-donkeys, and stones to super-stones - poetically speaking. And visions just go to that same mental factory, or sankhara factory if you will. “See the God you want to be” is the motto.

Classic cognitive experiments showed that small children from poor families dramatically overestimated the physical size of coins. Surely humans have the talent to exaggerate what they are craving.

If you know monastic life a bit just remember how ridiculous it is when you see ‘worshippers’ approaching monks, projecting benign holiness on them. Don’t get me wrong, monastics can be the most heart-opening sweet people, but throwing oneself into the dirt in front of them was neither the Buddha’s thing nor is it anything to contemporary developed monks.

See the video snippets of Ramana and a worshipper kissing his dust - he just looks as if he’s waiting for the bus (so to say). UG Krishnamurty - think of him what you like, but he - related the nice story that along his ‘enlightenment’ he saw the ‘saints go marching out’. Out of his system that is.

We can’t help to experience what we experience, but at least we can be as clear minded as possible not to delude ourselves additionally, becoming prey to our emotions and hopes, exciting ourselves into the most fantastic belief systems, be they idiosyncratic or culturally delivered.

At least that’s my own take on it. Dhamma & practice first, enjoy visions with some popcorn and then forget about them…

1 Like
28

Buddhism is a vast and kaleidoscopically diverse global phenomenon. It comes in many forms. The reasons disaffected western Christians or secular agnostics might be drawn to certain varieties of modernist Buddhism are not always closely related to the reasons born-and-raised Buddhists in the Asian cultures were it is an ancient religious tradition love and remain in that tradition.

1 Like
29

In most cases, visions are only evidence for the people who experience them. I don’t regard visions as important, except for perhaps explaining the origins of the Mahayana sutras.

30

Pure Land Buddhism is a school within Mahayana Buddhism, and numerous Mahayana sutras mention Amitabha Buddha.

The oldest Mahayana inscription discovered also mentions Amitabha Buddha:

Pure Land Buddhism is the most widely practiced form of Mahayana Buddhism. Even Zen (Ch’an) and Tibetan Buddhism have their own traditions of Pure Land practice.

31

It may be, but that still doesn’t mean it fits the definition for the label buddhism. The same goes for how popular it may be. Buddhism, is the teachings of the buddha gotama, and pure land just doesn’t fit that definition. Even the more general mayahana at least is still the teachings of gotama a few times removed; but to be honest, in my eyes it barely slips in to fitting the definition for buddhism. But when pressed, I would give mayahana the buddhist definition, in a weird kinda removed way, it’s still the teachings of gotama. Pure land just isn’t, and although you differentiate it, I would argue it’s actually closer to born again christianity than buddhism. When compared to born again christianity and the teachings of gotama, it definitely is closer to christianity. At some point when you get that far removed, to where it is actually closer in similarity to another religion, the definition just doesn’t fit anymore.

1 Like
32

You might not say that if you were more familiar with the origins, teachings, and history of Pure Land Buddhism, and of Mahayana Buddhism in general.

Shinran understood Amida as Dharma-body or the Buddha-nature in all things, and the Pure Land as the realm of Nirvana. The Pure Land is not a Buddhist heaven, and Amida is not a god:

33

FYI , according to the Sutra of Amitabha the pureland teachings does has to do with ebt , please see below .

《佛說阿彌陀經》
（梵：Sukhāvatī-vyūha）
Amitabha Sutra

復次舍利弗。彼國常有種種奇妙雜色之鳥。白鶴、孔雀、鸚鵡、舍利、迦陵頻伽、共命、之鳥。是諸眾鳥。晝夜六時。出和雅音。其音演暢五根、五力、七菩提分、八聖道分、如是等法。其土眾生。聞是音已。皆悉念佛念法念僧。

In the pureland of Amitabha there were various types of birds that were propounding the sounds of the dharma which is the 5 indriya , 5 Bala , sapta bodhyanga/ 7 factors of Awakening and
āryāṣṭāṅgamārga / 8 fold path . And by listening to the dharma thus the beings in the pureland abides in recollecting of the Buddha Dharma Sangha .

P/s : the pureland is just a platform for those who want to continue the practice of the dharma if they chose to regardless of their backgrounds and reasons.

This however does resemble of the Anagami the never returned whom resides in the pure abode to continue to practice the dhamma until attaining the Arahatship state .

1 Like
34

Yeah I noticed that’s similarity in the pure abode, but the huge irreconcilable difference is that to get there you need to be a highly advanced practitioner, and sincere belief is really only one fetter of 5 that need to be completely uprooted before that can happen. To say that it only takes sincere belief totally removes the whole point of it. The effort that it requires is immense, and even then there’s nothing to say it’s a guarantee, not until those 5 fetters are uprooted, or even if you’re not into the 10 fetter model, the level of advancement is incredibly high compared to someone who just believes sincerely in the teachings. Now if you change it so the sincere belief just inspires the practice, well then what’s the point of saying that at all, you might as well just stay with the original teachings at that point. But to be clear, that’s not what pure land is really about, when it comes down to it, true sincere belief is enough to get you there, regardless of how advanced you become in this life. It’s almost like an “A for effort” model, and that’s just not what the buddha taught. It certainly helps, but it also certainly doesn’t get you in the pure abodes.

1 Like
35

It’s not necessarily as simple as that. A sincere belief in Amida and the Pure Land will, in the words of Shinran, result in a change of heart and a change of life:

It is deplorable that you have told people to abandon themselves to their hearts’ desires and to do anything they want. One must seek to cast off the evil of this world and to cease doing wretched deeds; this is what it means to reject the world and to live the Nembutsu. When people who may have said the Nembutsu for many years abuse others in word or deed, there is no indication of rejecting this world.
16 - The Collected Works of Shinran

One doesn’t just recite the Nembutsu, as if that is the only thing one is to do. In the words of Shinran above, one is to live it as well.

36

Amida, rather than a god, is symbolic of enlightenment itself and the unconditioned true nature of all things:

Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment…

No gods, no beliefs, yet Buddhism encourages devotion. How can that be?

The Buddha taught that the biggest barrier to realization is the notion that “I” am a permanent, integral, autonomous entity. It is by seeing through the delusion of ego that realization blooms. Devotion is an upaya for breaking the bonds of ego.

For this reason, the Buddha taught his disciples to cultivate devotional and reverential habits of mind. Thus, devotion is not a “corruption” of Buddhism, but an expression of it. Of course, devotion requires an object.

To what is the Buddhist devoted? This is a question that may be clarified and re-clarified and answered in different ways at different times as one’s understanding of the teachings deepens.

If Buddha was not a god, why bow to Buddha-figures? One might bow just to show gratitude for the Buddha’s life and practice. But the Buddha figure also represents enlightenment itself and the unconditioned true nature of all things.

In the Zen monastery where I first learned about Buddhism, the monks liked to point to the Buddha representation on the altar and say, “That’s you up there. When you bow, you are bowing to yourself."

What did they mean? How do you understand it? Who are you? Where do you find the self? Working with those questions is not a corruption of Buddhism; it is Buddhism. For more discussion of this kind of devotion, see the essay ”Devotion in Buddhism“ by Nyanaponika Thera.
Is Buddhist Philosophy Atheist?

37

Right, but living it is not the same as making progress. If living it is what really matters, then saying something sincerely shouldn’t even be necessary. What if you follow Gotama’s teachings, and you’re not only living it but devotedly practicing your whole life, but you never say whatever your supposed to say and in fact you don’t believe that at all. Does that mean you’re just screwed when you die and you don’t get to go to this place? And really the main point, which is what about the fact that gotama never talked about anything like this? Yes he talked about the pure abodes, but that is not pure land, and has nothing to do with sincerely saying something and living it. It may not be as simple as I’m saying, but it’s still twisting the original teachings unnecessarily. Why even bother with all that and try to fit it into the buddhist definition when you can just follow the actual teachings of gotama, which I would argue are far more likely to be accurate than something that came long after him and was only based on visions people had. Gotama’s knowledge was quite extensive, being a buddha, and if this was actually a part of the Dhamma, you’d think it would have found its way into the original teachings. It just seems far more reasonable to trust the teachings of the buddha we know instead of someone who just claims to have visions that contradict the original Dhamma gotama taught. And they do contradict it, if only because he clearly laid out what was important and this aspect was never included. Again, this isn’t about what’s true or false, but only what are the teachings of gotama and therefore what is actually buddhism. There’s no need to try and fit pure land into gotama’s teachings, because it just isn’t there. It’s more a matter of people looking into buddhism for the first time, and becoming very confused when they see pure land and seeing the buddhism at the end of it and then actually thinking it was what gotama taught. Now it obviously has aspects of buddhism within it, I’m not arguing that, but just that having aspects of buddhism doesn’t make it buddhism. Buddhism is the teachings of gotama, and anything else just needs a different name, that’s all. So there’s buddhism, and there’s pure land. And to be fair, pure land is not the only religion that makes this mistake. And honestly, if these other religions and sects don’t drop the buddhist moniker, than the actual teachings of gotama, based on the EBTs, should maybe be called something else, but it doesn’t seem right that true buddhism, the teachings of gotama, should be run out of its own name. I’ve heard people use nikaya buddhism, which I like, but I don’t think it should be necessary. If you don’t think gotama would approve of something being associated with his teachings, then it probably shouldn’t be called buddhism, since the buddha part of the name buddhism is talking about gotama, and that’s just not a fact you can escape from.

38

I honestly can’t engage in further discussion with you on this matter, if you believe that Pure Land Buddhism is more akin to evangelical Christianity than with actual Buddhism, especially since it’s the most widely practiced form of Buddhism in East Asia.

I recommend reading Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GMN-AgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

39

I honestly can’t engage in further discussion with you on this matter, if you believe that Pure Land Buddhism is more akin to evangelical Christianity than with actual Buddhism, especially since it’s the most widely practiced form of Buddhism in East Asia.

I recommend reading Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams.

http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/mahayana_buddhism_-_the_doctrinal_foundations_second_edition.pdf

The last chapter goes into detail regarding the origins and meaning of Pure Land Buddhism.

40

Just compare it to the time of the Buddha using the vehicle of oxcart and today superjet .

Probably this vehicle might inclined towards those whom has little knowledge of the dhamma , old and sick , and perhaps very lazy people .

Pureland teachings can suit variety of different types of people .

P/s : To put it this way , Pureland teachings can be considered as something that in terms of the EBTs will not ever think of .

1 Like