 |
|
My Impression Regarding Amida Belief
|
|
|
These forums have moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 1 - 4 (14 total)
|
|
|
mayutzu
2/19/2006 10:26 AM
|
1 out of 14 |
|
|
|
I found an interesting short essay (actually, a transcribed lecture) on the Institute for Buddhist Studies website yesterday. It is by Kogi Kudara, a professor at the Nishi Honganji-affiliated Ryukoku University in Kyoto. The essay is titled "My Impression Regarding Amida Belief." One of the translators in a former professor of mine, and another is a friend from my temple. I thought it was an intriguing essay because Dr. Kudara is a specialist in early Central Asian Mahayana texts, so he has a very long historical view of the development of Buddhism. The final paragraphs of the essay are reproduced at the IBS site:
"Sometimes we hear some people speaking about Amida Buddha or the Pure Land as substantial existences as if they are the same as God or heaven in Christianity. But that kind of explanation is beside the point. Amida Buddha is like a mirror that shows one's true self in order to fulfill the supreme self (the expression of the concept of compassion in the form of the personified Buddha).
"The truth that Shakyamuni Buddha revealed is something beyond forms or words. This point is also reiterated by Shinran (1173–1262), the founder of Jodo Shinshu in Japan, who understands that Supreme Buddha is formless. We have to understand that 'forms without content are meaningless, and content without form is disorder.' Living in the modern world, we should not lose the content and not be constricted by forms or formality."
Anyway, if you're interested, here is a link to the pdf: My Impression Regarding Amida Belief
And here is a link to the collection of essays online at IBS: IBS Online Reading Room. There are lots of other resources you can print out or read on your computer.
|
|
|
|
gerald_ford
2/21/2006 12:11 PM
|
2 out of 14 |
|
|
|
Interesting you should mention this. I was having another one of my doubt phases lately, like the one I had a few months back. I was again concerned that the Path of Other Power (tariki) would somehow invalidate the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.
The minister's assistants, who have become mentors in training me to be a minister's assistant, happen to say something you had said before too. They had said that Amida was the embodiment of compassion, and not necessarily a real Buddha. Thus, to me, Amida is the focal point of our practice, and not the end-all-be-all of Buddhism. This really helped to put things in perspective, and gave me renewed appreciation for Shin Buddhism and for Shinran's ways.
I remember in a recent class we had on Shinran at our Temple, the fact that in Mt. Hiei, they used to do this practice where they would circumbabulate around a statue of Amida for 90 days, and would never sit. Shinran tried this, and after 80 or so days, he didn't feel different.
That's when he probably realized that form and ritual by themselves are generally pointless. It's the meaning behind it that matters. :)
|
|
|
|
gerald_ford
2/21/2006 12:15 PM
|
3 out of 14 |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I have seen how some of the early Japaneese-born Shin priests in America do preach a "Amida and the Pure Land are real" type Buddhism. I read this book by a certain Japanese Shin Priest that almost turned me off on Shin Buddhism recently because it was just droning on and on about Amida in a way that sounded like "Amida or nothing". It was kind of discouraging and short-sighted to me.
The minister's assistants I was talking with were complaining about this same problem where the BCA hasn't always had a consistent message with regard to these questions. So as not to confuse people, the BCA ought to take a stance and say, "here's our stance on Amida..." and expect priests to try to follow that as best they can.
But I digress.
|
|
|
|
Fusha
4/9/2006 4:57 PM
|
4 out of 14 |
|
|
|
In response to Gerald's last post I would like to make the following comments.
I find it very heartening that you have heard Shin Priests teaching that "Amida and his Pure Land are real", because this is actually the Shinshu teaching. In fact Amida is more real than you or I as Amida is what is true and real, I am not.
And why do you refer to the fact that the priests who have taught the reality of Amida are Japanese? What does this have to do with it other than that you are probably hearing Shin Buddhism as it is rather than a watered down interpretation of it. Shinran Shonin was Japanese and he taught the reality of Amida and his Pure Land, as did Rennyo Shonin and countless other priests and lay-followers.
I don't want to sound harsh or fundementalist but I feel that the tradition of Shin Buddhism is being continually eroded by those who would throw out the Buddha with the bath water and fictionalise the truth and reality of Amida Buddha who is both formless (Dharmakaya-in-itself) and with form (Dharmakaya as compassionate means).
Lastly it would be very dangerous for the BCA to take a "stance on Amida" and expect ministers to tow the line. The function of the BCA or any temple should be to encourage its members, priest or lay, to attain faith or Shinjin. This is the most important thing. Having entrusted oneself to Amida Buddha and awakened the aspiration to be born in the Pure Land, one can then go on to guide and teach others about Amida Buddha and His Land.
Gassho in Dharma
Fusha
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
|
