- ... Aaron, Hisao Inagaki has written that Shakyamuni did not use the name of Amida when he taught about the samadhi of the immeasurable. True, the sutras aboutMessage 1 of 39 , Oct 11, 2005View Source
In a message dated 10/11/05 7:09:49 PM, shoren108@... writes:
Now I hear Amida is a fictional character created 300 years after Shakyamuni’s death. So Buddha did NOT tell Sariputra about Amida as spoken in the sutras? And that he(Amida) is a construct to criticize the stagnation of Hinayana? So Dr. Haneda says in his essay.
Hisao Inagaki has written that Shakyamuni did not use the name of
Amida when he taught about the samadhi of the immeasurable. True,
the sutras about Amida were compiled centuries after Shakyamuni.
Later editors refined the original teaching and gave the immeasurable
a buddha-name, Amitabha or Amitayus. Those names represent the
attributes of "immeasurable wisdom" and "immeasurable compassion."
It is really those attributes we are accessing in the nembutsu
samadhi, not some sort of divinity in the sky somewhere far off in
the west. Even so, I like to think of the "immeasurable" as a specific
buddha, Amida, since I feel I make a more personal connection that
way. Remember, the Mahayana sutras, like the Amida Sutra and the
Larger Sutra on Immeasurable Life, are written in a kind of mythic
"code". They are not, I believe, meant to be taken literally, they are
symbolic in nature but speak to a higher reality that cannot be
conceived of or expressed in words. I hope this helps.
- That s great advice, Galen, bows to you and Prof. Matsunaga. gassho, Rick ... From: Galen Gorelangton To: email@example.com Sent:Message 39 of 39 , Oct 27, 2005View SourceThat's great advice, Galen, bows to you and Prof. Matsunaga.
From: Galen Gorelangton <monto48@...>
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [shinlist] Re: Losing my Religion?
My name is Galen, and this is the first poste I am sending on
this group, which I have recently joined. I have been reading through
the chain entitled "Losing my Religion?" and cannot help but think of a
few things. First, a few simple words by the Temple Master of my dojo,
Professor Matsunaga; once, during a dharma-talk, he stated very matter
of factly, somthing to the effect of;
"If you want to believe that Amida is an actual person that lives in
a place called the Pureland, that is ok; if you want to believe that
Amida is your idealized self, and the Pureland is this absolute moment,
that is ok too."
It is just that simple, at least in his mind. The truth of the
matter, I think, is that we truely are foolish being that realy have
no clue as to the matter of these things, or even any method for
judging truth objectively. We are rather helpless things, we humans.
Which of us can truely claim to know whether or not there is a land so
many kalpas to west, or for that matter, what the true intent of the
writers of the sutras was?