Talk:Pure Land Buddhism

Dates

Are the dates in this article BC or AD? -- Gaurav 01:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AD. Or as some say, CE. --Menchi 01:57, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Only just realised that years in Wikipedia are AD unless explicitly mentioned 'BC'. Is there any place that policy is formally put out? Tried searching but couldn't get anything .. -- Gaurav 14:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nothing formal, but rather, an accepted rule of English writing. Some article that refers to dynasties that cross-over BC & AD may explicitly state so. BC years will always be stated as such. AD may or may not. The dichotomy alone should be clear. Plus, the context usually helps. --Menchi 03:50, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Organizing Afterlife Articles

I would like to organize the articles that deal with an otherworld as a real existence. I propose that Afterlife would be the best hub for such articles. Eschatology and Underworld are other possibilities, but I don't think they work as well as Afterlife. Any thoughts on such a project? Please come to Talk:Afterlife to discuss. Tom (hawstom) 14:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Requested move

Pure Land → Pure Land Buddhism – current article under the lemma describes the buddhist school, but it should describe the concept of the pure land or Sukhavati instead.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support (initiator) --Mkill 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Ph0kin (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC), I find this confusing as well, even being a Pure Land Buddhist.

Discussion

The Heading is fine as it is. I have experience with 11 years of Buddhist Pure Land practice as a fully ordained bhikshuni in this tradition. Most searches need very broad terms, newcomers do not even know the Sanskrit and in most places local languages are being used, mainly Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or Korean. With the growth of more interest in Europe there is now German, French and Spanish being used.--Ven Hong Yang, Bhikshuni 03:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenHongyang (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. From what I can tell, this move was already done, perhaps 4 years ago or more. Actually many discussion items on these pages are very old, as there are not many editors for this subject. All the best. :-) Tengu800 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of the Pure Land yet, as in de:Sukhavati or ja:浄土. The article should be either at Sukhavati, which is only a disambig at the moment, or here. To make space for the article, the current article, describing the buddhist schools based on the concept, should be moved. --Mkill 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Amidism Incorrect?

The article states that the term Amidism is incorrect, but when searching Google the only pages that said that where directly copying from Wikipedia, so I removed that it was incorrect. I also cited the term "Amidism". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Pure Land Buddhist myself, the term is somewhat archaic and outmoded. It's like the term "Mohammedism" which Muslims find offensive. No one at our temple uses it either. I suggest removing it, except where it's cited as a term no longer used.

Thanks! --Ph0kin (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

one shouldn't over-generalize. When I asked a fellow-pupil at school what his religion was, he said Mohammedan. Peter jackson (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

pure land practice

everything after the second paragraph in the section "pure land practice" may well be correct but it needs to be re-written with respect to English grammar. Also, is it okay to give references that are not in English, since the text is in English? Certainly in an academic article it would be fine, but i don't know about Wikipedia.Briesas (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy is that English sources are preferred where possible, but foreign ones are allowed. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

I have moved the "Further Reading" section here, because it is excessive and because these works seem to focus on one particular subtopic.

Corless, Roger. 1989. ‘Pure Land and Pure Perspective: A Tantric Hermeneutic of Sukhāvatī.’ The Pure Land, New Series, 6: 205-17.

Halkias, T. Georgios. 2009. “Compassionate Aspirations and their fulfilment: Dol-po-pa’s A Prayer for Birth in Sukhāvatī .” In As Long As Space Endures: Essays on the Kālachakra Tantra in Honor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, pp. 259–275.

_____. 2006. “Pure-Lands and other Visions in Seventeenth-Century Tibet: a Gnam-chos sādhana for the pure-land Sukhāvatī revealed in 1658 by Gnam-chos Mi-’gyur-rdo-rje (1645-1667).” In Power, Politics and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century, ed. B. Cuevas et al. Leiden: Brill Publishers, pp. 121–151.

______.2006. Transferring to the Land of Bliss: Among Sukhavati Texts and Practices. Doctoral Thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Kajihama, Ryoshun. 2002a. Tibet no Jyōdo Shisō no Kenkyū (Japanese. The Study of Pure Land in Tibet). Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō.

______.2002b. “3rd rDo Gruchen Rinpoche’s Pure Land Thought (III).” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 50/2: 984-87.

______.1996. “3rd rDo Gruchen Rinpoche’s Pure Land Thought (II).” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 44/2: 948-52.

______.1994. “3rd rDo Gruchen Rinpoche’s Pure Land Thought (I).” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 43/1: 492-98.

______.1991. “A Study of a Prayer Book on Rebirth in the Land of Bliss (Sukhāvatī) Written by Tsong kha pa.” Monograph published by the Faculty of International Language and Culture, Setsunan University, 23/3: 293-322.

Kapstein, Matthew. 2004. “Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet? From Sukhāvatī to the Field of Great Bliss.” In Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha, ed. R. Payne and K. Tanaka. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1-16.

______.1998. “A Pilgrimage of Rebirth Reborn: the 1992 Celebration of the Drigung Powa Chenmo”. In Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet, ed. M. Goldstein and M. Kapstein, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 95-119.

Mei, Ching Hsuan. 2004. “’Pho ba Liturgy in 14th Century Tibet.” Tibet Journal, XXIX/2: 47-70.

Silk, Jonathan. 1993. “The Virtues of Amitābha: A Tibetan Poem from Dunhuang.” Bükkyo Bunka Kenkyüjo Kiyö, 32.

Smith, H. and Novak, P. (2003). "The Flowering of Faith: Buddhism's Pure Land Tradition" (pp. 185-198) in Smith, Huston; Novak, Philip (2003). Buddhism: A concise introduction. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0060506962.

Copyediting Query

"Gyatrul (b.1924),[37] in a purport to the work of Chagmé..." Is purport the right word in this, the first sentence of the last paragraph? I have never seen it used as a noun (as it apparently functions here) this way. It seems like "introduction" "comment (on), or maybe "report (on)" is what is needed here instead. I urge anyone who knows about Gyatrul and what relation exactly his writing bears to that of Chagmé to clarify this sentence.Prohairesius (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Repetitions

In the article it says "Those who practice this method often commit to a fixed set of repetitions per day, often from 50,000 to over 500,000". Given that a day has 86400 seconds,　500,000 repetitions a day would require 6 repetitions a second, without a break, for 24 hours, after which the next "fixed set of repetitions" begins. What I am trying to say is: The given numbers are rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoSchizzatore (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point, and those numbers did seem unrealistically high. I've removed the numbers until more is known about the matter. Tengu800 09:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Too esoteric

Someone should rewrite at least introduction to make it comprehensible to readers who don't already know a great deal about Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.221.197 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pure Land Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029193452/http://www.i-ipi.com/book/purpose_of_life/purpose to http://www.i-ipi.com/book/purpose_of_life/purpose
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_ThreePureLandSutras_2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Tibet

Couldn't undo "10:27, 1 April 2016‎ MethaneK (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,128 bytes) (-16)‎ . . (Tibet is in China) (undo | thank)", so changed it manually.

The fact that "(Tibet is in China)" is a political discussion. Let's not make this article political.

This sentence describes "the Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions of China,... and Tibet", which are two different schools/traditions, are from two different cultures and have way different approaches (Tibet using the Vajrayāna-approach).--Julius Civilis (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd sentence

Can anyone deobfuscate "It may be terrible rather than other Buddhism."?

Earcanal (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pure Land Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910171202/http://www.birminghammuseumstore.org/gutoco.html to http://www.birminghammuseumstore.org/gutoco.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Pure Land History" - no dates?

If someone wants to read about this history and see how it fits in with other histories, where are the dates? Can someone add more? Jimhoward72 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Passage on vegetarianism in the lead

The user Foristslow continued to add the following passage on the lead which I argue is not very useful and this has been leading to an edit war between us, hopefully we can resolve.

Passage is as follows:

However, Pure Land Buddhism also includes a large group of practices which are done alongside Buddha recitation including the practice of abstaining from the consumption of the five pungent herbs, vegetables or roots ,wǔ xīn (五辛) for mind health and the eating animals or the use of animal by-products called chún jìng sù,(纯净素) in Chinese and translating as pure Buddhist vegetarian/vegan denoting the aspiration and transcendence to higher levels of non-violence through physical practice.

Instead I have the following

However, Pure Land Buddhism may also includes numerous other practices which are done alongside Buddha recitation, such as keeping Buddhist precepts, reciting sutras, visualization, vegetarianism, and making offerings.

The lead is a place to summarize the basic elements of pure land Buddhism. Vegetarianism might be important in specific Chinese traditions, but the fact remains that it is not a CENTRAL element of Pure Land Buddhism, not anymore than other classic Chinese Mahayana elements. This is borne out by the fact that if one searches for "vegetarian" in Charles Jone's 2019 book "Chinese Pure Land Buddhism", there is only single entry on this issue. Interestingly enough, the entry discuss the Qing work One Hundred Questions about Nianfo (Niànfó bǎi wèn 念佛百  問), in which question 48 affirms that vegetarianism is good, but if someone cannot be vegetarian - "In general, it will constitute a fault, but a very minor one. Furthermore, it functions as a hidden fault. [Nevertheless,] if one practices nianfo and seeks birth in the Land of Bliss, and his or her mind is deeply committed, then at the end of life, the power of the Way will overcome the power of karma, and he or she will most certainly achieve rebirth. (CBETA X.1184.62:359c17–c19)". Thus it is clear that vegetarianism, while certainly being one part of Chinese Pure Land (just like rituals, repentance, and so on) is not a defining element of it and indeed, one can attain the goal of Pure Land without, as explained in this work.

The same cannot be said for Japanese Pure land since it does not really affirm vegetarianism at all. When it comes to Pure Land in other places, like Vietnam or the West, I am not really sure of any of this. So really, it doesn't make sense to have a passage here in the lead singling out vegetarianism. It makes more sense to list various secondary practices briefly. My passage now lists numerous common secondary Pure Land practices and I have also included vegetarianism in the spirit of reconciliation with user Foristslow.

Regarding the sources that user Foristslow is using for this passage he keeps inserting into the lead, they are not scholarly sources, but different websites to different Chinese Buddhist orgs who briefly mention vegetarianism. So they are not adequate to buttress this passage.

Javier F.V. 13:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I have some other Buddhism topic editors weigh in on this so we can maybe have some consensus?

Can y'all provide some imput maybe, JimRenge, Joshua Jonathan, Skyerise, Likes Thai Food ? Javier F.V. 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Javierfv1212, giving too much focus to vegetarianism in the lead seems inappropriate. I don't think the lead need mention vegetarianism at all. Perhaps there could be a single paragraph devoted to it in some other, more appropriate, location on the page. Of course, it would still need better sources. Likes Thai Food (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed it. Pure Land sects exist which do not practice vegetarianism. It is not a universal characteristic of Pure Land Buddhism. Skyerise (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Javier too. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I also just updated the lead to be shorter, 4 paragraphs, as you suggested Javier F.V. 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies everyone and it would be nice if you waited for my reply as I am obviously in a different time zone. I agree the lead is far too long and I had no idea that the edit was in that placement. I think that the references do support the inclusion of vegetarianism/ veganism and the five roots inclusion somewhere in the body. What do you think Foristslow (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)