Pureland as Generic Spirituality & Frame for Spiritual Exploration

[Dharmavidya]

I think I am speaking for more than just myself when I say that many of us believe that broadly speaking religions are all trying to do much the same thing, though some may do it better than others and some may be strong in areas where others are weak and vice versa. So religions are not all the same and we cannot assume that they are all as good as one another, but we can take it that broadly they have a common purpose even if we none of us fully understand that purpose. Further, we are all human so even if our own religion were the perfect one, we will never be the perfect practitioners of it. There is thus a situation in which faith devotees all have things to learn from other practitioners whether of their own faith or of other faiths. The differences between faiths also are of interest because they illustrate the different ways that human being try to transcend their limitations or express their alienation from what is ultimate.

As Pureland Buddhists we think in terms of the "bombu" (limited, fallible human being) in relation to Amida Buddha, and the expression of the relationship between the two, most fundamentally through the prayer tha we call the nembutsu. These three elements - bombu devotee, Amida Buddha, nembutsu - are the foundation stones of the Amida-shu school of Buddhism. As broad concepts they are close o a description of what one might call "generic spirituality" - the limited being expressing his/her relation to the unlimited.

The nature of this relationship is bound to vary over time. At some times one feels close to Amida Buddha, at others distant, at times inspired, at time alienated, despairing, hopeful, reproved, dejected, uplifted, etc. etc. The point is that Pureland provides not so much a formula for how one should be as a framework within which to explore and express how one is.

[Kaspalita]

Interesting, I suspect that your first comment - all religions are trying to do the same thing, needs some unpacking. As you rightly say religions are human institutions, but I would add a second point, that even a single religion is made up of many groups, and each of those individuals, each group and individual with their own agenda. Perhaps there are some saints, or prophets within each religion, and across religions who are trying to do/pointing at the same thing, but I would be wary of saying we're all trying for that.

This assumes that there is some universal good we are aiming for, which is taken as read in your post, there are arguments against this of course - although actually I tend to agree, that there is some universal good - just our expression of it, including our ethics, varies immensely, and of course this affects our human lives.

However, I pressed 'reply' to ask a question - isn't the model you pose essentially a form of inclusivism, that refuses to take other religions on their own terms?

For examples, religions that assert the divine, infallable nature of their scriptures.

There's maybe nothing wrong in taking this inclusive stance, but I want to flag up that it is that, and people of other religions may heartily disagree.

Within the terms of your own argument, what you have written is essentially bonbu, and leaves room for others to be different, and correct, surely?

In practice I suspect that many people across faiths would be happy with your model, and that some people within each, would not be.

[Dharmavidya]

Yes, I think it is inclusivist and therefore not completely pluralist. People who believe in unique revelation and exclusiveness could in theory be right, but I think they are wrong, so I take them 'on their terms' only to the extent that I understand more or less what they mean and why it might be important to them, but I still disagree with them.

On the issue of a 'universal good' - yes, at the infinity point that we never reach.

[richard meyers]

Just to leap in and say I prefer the notion of "bombu" to "sinner", with all the old guilt and heavy baggage, although in essence I guess they mean the same thing. The Pureland offers a faith of openness, tolerance and respect for other peoples traditions, with not a trace of that ugly superiority I once found amongst practicing 'Buddhists' and latterly amongst many pagan folk, when speaking about Christianity. In recent time Islam too, has come in for a great deal of snide comment.

For me the thing we are all searching for ultimately, is 'Home' and wherever we find it, (provided there is a foundation of Love and Right Livelihood involved) has to be good. Which is why the parable of the prodigal son is so powerful and makes so much emotional sense to this particular bombu, having squandered so much of my "fathers inheritance". Oh, the old affliction of accedia will no doubt kick in at some stage and the grass will appear greener just over the hill, but in all truth, finding fault with this path of open-heartedness, love, acceptance and grace will be harder than of yore. We are all fallible people and no-one is fundamentally superior to anyone else. Within the Amida Trust a hierarchy of expertise is is place, but not one of inherent 'holiness' or superiority. I love the 'horizontal' as opposed to the 'vertical' plane of reference referred to by Dharmavidya, in 'Who Loves Dies Well'.

I once saw Shin Buddhism referred to as 'Japan's major religious contribution to the West'. This was part of a blurb on the cover of a book of transcribed talks by DT Suzuki, When I first read the book (in the early 80's) I enjoyed it a lot, but thought that description a bit grandiose, now I'm not so sure. So once again, with thanks.
Namo Amida Bu

[Ben Ross]

I don't think I have much to add to the discussion (sometimes this changes as my fingers click on the keyboard) but I just wanted to express appreciation for the ideas of Pureland as containing this seed or generic kind of spirituality, for the variance that is bound to occur in relationship to Amida, for the sense of Pureland as framework rather than formula. I think any organized religion has to deal with the fears that are raised for many people that their voices and other voices will be shut out, that they will be expected to be perfect somehow, that they need to follow rigid guidelines or risk being cast aside. It's hard for me to overcome these old expectations as I venture toward rooting myself in the Pureland and the Christian traditions. Reading this tonight I've gotten a sense of Pureland as providing a kind of scroll and a set of characters on which we can make our own calligraphy. Doing calligraphy without the scroll or the characters might be interesting, but would ultimately lack focus, meaning, and the element of responding to a community and tradition of calligraphers. I like the idea of coming "Home" as you put it, Richard, and how it can involve admitting and accepting one's own faults on the way to allowing oneself to join with others who have found such acceptance and continued to live in faith. I think many people keep trying to make this into something solid - I'm reminded of a scene from one of the Gospels where on a mountaintop Jesus reveals himself to his disciples as divine, whereupon the disciples immediately start building little huts, trying to house the spirit they witness there permanently. The spirit is in people, and the organization nurtures it, when it's healthy and grounded and open. Deep appreciate for the vision, heart and clarity!

Namo Amida Bu

[Dr Di]

Zen goes a step further, to look at our bombu nature, rather than identifying with it. for example, becoming the watcher of our thoughts and feelingd leads us closer to equanimity and the buddha-mind which the buddha Sakyamuni promised is accessible to all