I think you are confusing Jesus’s virgin birth and Mary’s immaculate conception.
Ancient Christianity in the period before the Nicene Creed is very interesting and rarely studied, it is more accurate to describe the early period not in terms of Christianity, but in terms of Christianities.
Yeah, the virgin birth is found in the Bible (in the gospels of Luke and Matthew) and is widely believed by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians. The “Immaculate Conception” is the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin — it’s not found in the Bible, though it was declared a dogma of the Catholic Church in 1854 (though it was widely believed/discussed before this time).
1 Like
I need to stop right here. The virgin birth is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived without sexual intercourse, which is taught in the New Testament and has been taught in Christianity throughout history.
You might be thinking about the immaculate conception of Mary, that Mary was conceived without original sin. You might also be thinking about the perpetual virginity of Mary, another Catholic doctrine.
Even Protestants, who don’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, believe that she was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception, because it’s taught in the New Testament.
I’ve read Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman and The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. The Nicene Creed was intended to affirm what “mainstream” Christians had believed from the beginning of the faith, in order to counter the Arian “heresy.” While the Nicene Creed isn’t in the New Testament, it was intended to affirm what the New Testament teaches.
Must resist urge to talk about Elaine Pages… 
Let’s go back to the words of Paul Williams on Pure Land Buddhism:
More importantly, I consider Pure Land is built on a myth (i.e. ‘myth’ in a sense including historical falsehood – some Pure Land followers argue the ahistorical nature of this is an advantage over Christianity), the myth of Dharmakara Bodhisattva and hence of Amitabha Buddha. I have no reason to accept the existence of Amitabha Buddha, whereas I do consider there are excellent reasons to accept the existence of God, and of course Our Lord was certainly a historical figure, as was the crucifixion and, for me, the resurrection.
Buddhist Convert: Paul Williams
I happen to agree that the trans-historical nature of the Pure Land sutras is an advantage over Christianity.
If the story of Dharmakara’s attainment of Buddhahood turned out to not be literally true, then such Buddhist doctrines as skillful means and the two-truths would allow us to interpret the story as a metaphor of the Dharmakaya’s activity in the world.
The Pure Land can also be interpreted as the realm of Nirvana, rather than a literal place.
In reciting the name of Amida Buddha, Namu-Amida-Butsu, we are expressing trust in Amida Buddha and gratitude for our future rebirth into the Pure Land, the realm of Nirvana.
Amida Buddha need not be a literal Buddha if he’s a symbolic expression of Dharma-body’s activity in the world. Traditional Christianity, however, depends on the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ as literal historical events.
No, I was not confusing the Virgin Birth with the Immaculate Conception.
For those interested, the topic of the Virgin Birth has a more complicated history than might be assumed.
1 Like
Revisionism at its finest, eh?
I suppose rebirth isn’t a part of Buddhism either.
This isn’t the forum correct forum to go into depth concerning the faults in that article, though. Are you on DharmaPaths? We can take it there if you’d like. Otherwise it’s a moot point and we’ll agree to disagree.
Evangelicals don’t fuss over the virgin birth because they believe in the infallibility of the Bible, which teaches the virgin birth. They don’t, however, believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is an extra-biblical doctrine.
What if it really is a strength of Buddhism that its doctrines aren’t dependent on literal historicity as much as Christianity seems to be?
Tbh I don’t really follow the argument. The dharmakāya could just as well not be a thing regardless of when X or Y person is believed to have attained it.
Even Mahāyāna is based on a historical claim, just one that exempts itself from historical critique, because it talks about events that happened a) endless aeons ago or b) happened/are happening outside of time and space. As for its historical claims that don’t exempt themselves from critique, perhaps the ascetic Gautama taught a few mysterious lessons to his closest monks, but the story of the 500 arhats leaving his dispensation doesn’t really make sense, which I’ve talked about before. Why would they keep following him afterwards? Why do they never mention the Buddhas bodhisattva disciples? Some Mahāyāna narratives would have us believe the Buddhas bodhisattva disciples were literally invisible to his non-bodhisattva disciples. Other narratives deal with the issue by ret-conning the dispensation to the shrāvaka altogether: all the disciples were bodhisattvas who pretended to be shrāvakas to inspire shrāvaka followers, whose destiny is ultimately to embrace the “One Vehicle”. None of those narratives are satisfying from a historical POV IMO.
In my opinion, even Hinduism is also based on historical claims, that is to say, events that are said to have happened in the past.
Ultimately, even a faith as vague as Daoism is based on a historical claim IMO, because someone, whether Laozi or not, had to become a sage in order to instruct others.
That is just my opinion, though.
I practise Mahāyāna Buddhism because I see some Mahāyāna Buddhisms as congruent to the intentions of the Buddha, but I see it as a the product of a long process of distillation and refinement, absorbing and assimilating countless Indian, Chinese, Central Asian, etc, local cults and religions into itself.
I don’t see it as historical in the least. I think it represents a reaction to a completely different set of cultural circumstances than the dispensation of the Ascetic to his beggars. I think they are clearly profoundly related, but from the POV of the Elder dispensation, I think Mahāyāna appears as a Hindu-esque path of lay devotion to the same figure of the Buddha.
And yes, we’ve already discussed the controversy and ambiguity over who influenced who vis-a-vis advaita and Mahāyāna.
There is a text by Venerable Bhāvaviveka defending Mahāyāna against shrāvaka critics who say that Mahāyāna is just appropriated advaita vedanta. So this goes way back.
Due to such concepts as skillful means (upaya) and the two truth-doctrine, Mahayana scriptures aren’t dependent on literal historicity.
The concepts of upaya and the two-truths doctrine didn’t originate with the Mahayana sutras, but are taught in the Pali suttas as well. I’ve demonstrated such in other threads.
Amida Buddha need not be a historical Buddha if he’s a finger pointing to the moon of Dharma-body. What ultimately matters is the moon as a true reality.
Rather than Hinduism influencing Mahayana Buddhism, what if it was the other way around?
But once one begins to regard Amida Buddha as a symbolic expression of something impersonal, one has thereby accepted that Amida Buddha is not a person who actually hears your agonized prayers, or who loves you when you feel all alone in the world. It seems like the latter emotional needs are what is driving Williams.
1 Like
Rather than seeing the Dharmakaya as impersonal, I prefer to use the term trans-personal, beyond our understanding of personality. Here is D. T. Suzuki on the Dharmakaya:
Dharma-body [hosshin, dharmakaya]
D.T. Suzuki explains this term:
Kaya meaning “the body” is an important conception in the Buddhist doctrine of reality. Dharmakaya [dharma-body] is usually rendered “Law-body” where Dharma is understood in the sense of “law,” “organization,” “systematization,” or “regulative principle.” But really in Buddhism, Dharma has a very much more comprehensive meaning. Especially when Dharma is coupled with Kaya – dharmakaya – it implies the notion of personality. The highest reality is not a mere abstraction, it is very much alive with sense and intelligence, and, above all, with love purged of human infirmities and defilements.
The dharmakaya is not the owner of wisdom and compassion, he is the Wisdom or the Compassion, as either phase of his being is emphasized for some special reason. We shall miss the point entirely if we take him as somewhat resembling or reflecting the human conception of man. He has no body in the sense we have a human body. He is Spirit, he is the field of action, if we can use this form of expression, where Wisdom and Compassion are fused together, are transformed into each other, and become the principle of vitality in the world of sense-intellect. (The Essence of Buddhism, Kyoto: Hozokan, 1948, p.47)
Glossary - The Collected Works of Shinran
In the Jodo Shinshu creed, we are discouraged from engaging in “petitionary prayer and superstition.” Yet Amida Buddha is always with us in the Nembutsu.
Amida hears our agony and suffering, and offers rebirth into the Pure Land, the realm of Nirvana, for all who call on his name. We are then called to practice gratitude for the remainder of our lives.
The name and form of Amida Buddha are a skillful device for making the outworking of Dharmakaya accessible and knowable to our daily lives:
Buddha exists in many forms, but all share the same “body of reality,” the same Dharmakaya, which is formless, omnipresent, all-pervading, indescribable, infinite–the everywhere-equal essence of all things, the one reality within-and-beyond all appearances.
Dharmakaya Buddha is utterly abstract and in fact inconceivable, so buddha takes on particular forms to communicate with living beings by coming within their range of perception. For most people, this is the only way that buddha can become comprehensible and of practical use. The particular embodiments of buddha, known as Nirmanakaya, are supreme examples of compassionate skill-in-means (upaya).
Pure Land Buddhism | NAMO AMITUOFO | 老實念佛 – 南無阿彌陀佛
This thread is wandering all over the place and will be closed if not brought back to discussion of the OP, which indicates nothing more to be said on the subject.
3 Likes
I think maybe we’ve already discussed everything there was to discuss.
2 Likes