A Fistful of Sand

Buddha Nature is today taught as being interchangeable with Tathagatagarbha . They mean different things but this is not taught today. Buddha-nature, Buddha-dhatu or Buddha Principle, is taught differently in various Mahayana Buddhism traditions. Broadly speaking Buddha-nature is concerned with ascertaining what allows sentient beings to become Buddhas. The term is from the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra where it is defined as the “true sacred nature” of the individual., in other words, a soul. Technically speaking, this universal definition is anti-Buddhist. No verses have caused so much controversy than the two that reference the “luminous mind.” They are found near the beginning of the Anguttara Sutta. They have been used to justify the idea of a soul theory inherent in the Buddhadhamma as well as the foundation of the teachings found in the Buddha-nature and Tathagatagarbha teachings. These enigmatic versus have no explanation in the Pali suttas and imaginations have run wil...

Those who know me tend to think of me as a hard core “Original Buddhism” kind of a guy. That much is true. The Pali Canon is my first love, but I have a warm spot in my heart for the intent and practice of Pure Land Buddhism. Why would this be? Pure Land actually begins with the Pali Canon and for the most part remains there. The poetry of the Three Pure Land Sutras is beautiful but says little about the Dhamma/Dharma. They are more like ornaments than teaching. Where there is divergence it appears in the “folk” part of the tradition where the symbols and metaphors become taken literally. It is this overtly devotional religiosity that causes many to scratch their heads and wonder what it is that is going on in these little groups of devotees. The Japanese form of Pure Land looks like a Christian Protestant service, is formatted like a Christian Protestant service and even has sermons but not many Dharma talks. For a Westerner, the Chinese Pure Land services don’t really have much ...

Introduction It is easy to critique Pure Land Buddhism in its current modus operandi. I do it myself. It’s an easy target because of its façade of superstition and magic, religious overtones and seemingly exotic teachings with its dependence on the “one true Buddha”. They really don’t say, “one true Buddha”, I sort of made that up myself. And it does seem sort of odd to walk into a Buddhist temple to find a very Protestant Christian looking and sounding service. But not all Pure Land schools operate the same way. Some are very “protestant like” and others are very traditional. It depends on which school is hosting the service.       Recently while presenting a talk on the Buddhist Doctrine of Mind at the Jung Center of Chicago a member of the audience came to me and said she had been studying Buddhism for 10 years and just could not understand the Pure Land Buddhists because they thought they could be saved by simply chanting “Amitabha Buddha” over and over aga...