Actually, is there any original sutras around? Those dated before the schism happen. Said by The Buddha himself and made into written by Ven. Ananda himself.
There seems a lot of suttas around but they belong to sects with minor and major difference. Some sects even have their own unique sutras.
Which one is the correct one? Which one was really taught by the Buddha? Maybe, most suttas were a product of hallucinations that trap the author and their believers? Or, maybe it just some kind of jokes made to make sure that the âignoranceâ believers
keep donating?
Yeah, if youâve spent time in a Thai forest tradition monastery in Thailand, youâll see a lot of the amulets that Westerners always malign, hear a lot of talk about ghosts and the psychic powers of different Tan Ajahns and Luang Pors, etc.
Yes, Somdet Do is popular. My teacher has a statue of him in his main meditation hall (although it might be a bit hard to make out in the picture):
I think there was always a little Guanyin related practice in Thailand. It was probably the influence of the Chinese in Thailand that was primarily responsible for that. However, that wasnât what I was talking about. I was talking Mahayana as a living tradition, but it doesnât matter.
My teacher built a bodhisattva shrine in his wat, with Avalokiteshvara (the male version of Guanyin) as the centerpiece:
I havenât been to his wat since he built that, and Iâm curious what other members of the Ajahn Cha community in Thailand thought of it. It had to be controversial. However this teacher is regarded as an arahant, and as possessing the Divine Eye. Iâve heard from monastic friends/teachers of mine who are this Ajahnâs students that he speaks about seeing bodhisattvas.
Itâs ultimately up to you to decide what you think is the authentic word of the Buddha. Do you take the results of academic scholarship as authoritative? Like the work by Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali? Have you read their book where they make their argument for the authenticity of the EBTs (https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf)? Or do you have faith in a particular Buddhist tradition and its teachers, and so take their word as to what is authentic Buddhism? Thereâs no shortage of people who will try to convince you of what is authentic Buddhism, but at the end of the day you have to make the decision for yourself.
We donât have a statue in the hall, but there is a painting, next to the picture of King Rama 9, which makes some sense, as he was said to be the preceptor of Rama 4 (along with subduing the ghost of Nang Nak).
As you say:
Sorry to be a little off topic, but it does seem relevant to the topic that there are many practices that donât fit neatly into a âpure original Buddhismâ box.
@dayunbao ⌠authentic is a real teaching by the Buddha, as heard by Ven. Ananda ⌠and academic books are considered (personally) not as authentic, anyway it is based on The Teaching of The Buddha plus Personal Thoughts (of the author + their teachers + grand-masters, etc) ⌠even the Visudhimagga are not considered (my personal opinion) authentic.
Indeed, that was just my own oppinion of the Pure Land concept.
But here are some of the similarities between Pure Land and the Pure Abodes for Non-returner:
The person who have attained to the Pure Land will not return to the sensuous realm or below the Pure Land, so technically, that makes them âNon-returnersâ.
The person who has attained to the Pure Land has not completed the job yet, (sounds familiar to non-returner?) as the great Pure Land master Lianâchi have said, and I quote: âPeople who practice will depend on their own abilities, some will attain enlightenment right in this very life, and some only attain enlightenment after the have been born to the Pure Landâ
Both Pure Land and the Pure Abodes cannot be destroyed by the natural process of decaying and disappearing.
The Maxim of Pure Land Buddhism are: âOne without heavy Karma will not be born to the Saha world. One with sensual desire unuprooted will not be born to the Pure Land.â And the Pure Land masters also said that: if one wants to attain to Pure Land, one must cut away all desires for this sensual realm (sounds familiar?).
In the Pali suttas, the Buddha described very little about the Pure Abodes, it means that it will mostly not be understood be non-attainers. A lot of Pure Land masters also said that the Pure Land sutras only describe the Pure Land by metaphorical images (like a mean of encouraging people), for you cannot describe other realms for those who donât know about it, and they only describe it by analogies.
After all, this is my own oppinion about the matter.
