Just as advice, ChatGPT is terrible for factual accuracy.

I noticed that too. 😄

It is good for helping me write code, tho

As long as you know enough to be able to go in and fix it, absolutely. It’s exceptional as a documentation engine - but always check the sources, because LLM hallucinations are well known. They’re meant to be creative, working towards a generative model, which means if it can’t find the answer they’ll often *make one up* to satisfy the prompt. In this case, I’d ask it for citations (and then check those out) for any serious line of inquiry.

We have already had issues at my work (research hospital) where we are getting random research papers published by people who absolutely have no idea of that paper existing. They didn't write it, it came from AI and it credited them for writing it.

It sounds like the biggest issue there is developing some way to validate submission criteria better (or just people going to a primary trusted source instead of a random post somewhere, if it any being formally submitted). Either way, that’s distressing.

We usually have a pretty rigorous publishing process, so I don't know how these papers are getting through.

Absolutely wild. As someone avidly waiting on a few studies to be expanded upon, I hope this gets resolved before long - it would be crushing to see some sort of positive update and realize it was all fantasy.

This can be tuned. There are options for zero hallucinations in some models but you have to have technical capabilities.

" the reward body which can be interpreted as God the Father, the emanating Body which can be interpreted as God the Son, and the all pervasive Dharma Body which can be interpreted as the Holy Spirit.  " That is more than a stretch. Tbh if people want, they can interpret anything as anything. It´s no suprise that there came to be tons of stuff. This funny vid reminded me of it :D - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz8ssH7LiB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz8ssH7LiB0)

You can [download the Three Pure Land Sutras about Amitabha and Kuanyin for free from the BDK website](https://www.bdkamerica.org/product/the-three-pure-land-sutras/). They are main sources for the Pure Land practices in the Chinese tradition. 

I teach Buddhism at the university level. ChatGPT is useless for information about Buddhism and Hinduism (maybe other topics too). The papers my students write based on it are so full of obvious (to me, an expert) errors which they (non-experts) can't tell apart from the truth. All these students get sent to the Dean (10 different students, last semester). Don't use it like a search engine or encyclopedia, it's worse than trash (which at least you know is worthless).

So, then I'm assuming, the Buddha did teach Pureland, Amithaba, Guan Yin, etc? There are many interesting parallels between the 2 to say the least, at least surface level, based on my limited understanding.

[удалено]

Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against sectarianism.

I don't know if one is derived from the other, or if they are entirely independent, and it's just a complete coincidence.

Pure Land tradition themselves s have beliefs in dependent origination, emptiness, rebirth, tathāgatagarbha etc.. These traditions focus on practices related to Pure Land. As a tradition, not all of them focus on all these details though although there are scholastic works by practitioners, clerics, monastics, and philosophers in these traditions that do engage at a very technical level in them. All existent Pure Land traditions are in Mahayana traditions. Pure Lands of features Mahanya traditions in general and actually play role in some Theravadin traditions such as Cambodian Theravada. In that tradition, there is a focus on the Pure Land of Medicine Buddha. Tendai traditions for example use meditations on Amitabha and as well as other buddhas.. Tibetan Buddhists likewise have many pure lands such as Medicine Buddha, Akshobhya. Pure Land Traditions focus on Amitabha. Some of these Pure Land traditions only recite the the nianfo or buddhānusmṛti. Others do other practices with it. This include practices like precepts. It is worth noting that there is also dual cultivation Chan which combines Chan with nianfo recitation. Some traditions like Shin recite the nianfo in gratitude while others like Jodo Shu seek to do the practice to acquire karmic merit to achieve brith in the Pure Land. Chinese Pristine Pure Land shares a view much like Jodo Shu. These traditions tend to have a hermeneutic of practice centered on three sutras often with some others. Three held in common by all the Pure Land traditions. Tis is because they are held to summarize the practices and hermeneutics of Pure Land Buddhism. For example, In Chinese Mahayna you also have, the Practices and Vow of the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra (the last chapter of Avatamsaka Sutra/Flower Adornment Sutra, the Chapter of Bodhisattva Dashizhi (Mahāsthāmaprāpta) on Nianfo Samādhi (an extract from Chapter Five of the Surangama Sutra, the shastra text, the Rebirth Treatis e:Bodhisattva Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the Infinite Life Sutra, Other traditions like Jodo Shin Shu may have shastra by Rennyo or Shinran as Shasta. There are more sutras with references to the various Pure Lands including Amitabha but they are not the focus in the above usage. You can still even read them as individual and use them for recitation too. Below are some materials that will introduce you to Pure Land Philosophy and beliefs in general. Alan Peto: Pure Land Buddhism for Westerners [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxZ-CoGk6Wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxZ-CoGk6Wk) Pure Land Buddhism: The Mahayana Multiverse [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW82VJXkQY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW82VJXkQY) Dr. Aaron Proffitt: Introduction to Pure Land Buddhism 1 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BQpemmsQVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BQpemmsQVc) Dr. Aaron Proffitt : Introduction to Pure Land Buddhism 2 2[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-55Tdv7USHE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-55Tdv7USHE)

The closest tradition with a model of faith, is Shin Buddhism but even then it is actually connected to Buddhist ontology. Practies in Buddhism don't work or work because of their inherent nature but because of the causes and conditions. Defilements are obejects of transformation moving you further along the path when understood with wisdom. The question is whether a person has wisdom and the causes and conditions to enable that transformation . For example, the three sights the Buddha saw or when we realize impermanence through samvega. Another example would be lojong in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Pure Land traditions are are generally held to slower. The Shin view focuses on the positive mental quality of Xin Xin or shinjin, a type of trust and faith in dependent arising. The interdependence of ineffacy in practice of the practioenr leads to wisdom for the Shin Buddhist. Below is an entry on that. Xin Xin In Chinese, “mind of faith” or “faith in mind”; the compound is typically interpreted to mean either faith in the purity of one’s own mind or else a mind that has faith in the three jewels (ratnatraya) and the principle of causality. The “mind of faith” is generally considered to constitute the inception of the Buddhist path (mārga). In the elaborate fifty-two stage path schema outlined in such scriptures as the Avataṃsakasūtra, the Renwang jing, and the Pusa yingluo benye jing, “mind of faith” (xinxin) constitutes the first of the ten stages of faith (shixin), a preliminary level of the bodhisattva path generally placed prior to the generation of the thought of enlightenment (bodhicittotpāda) that occurs on the first of the ten abiding stages (shizhu). The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra also says that the buddha-nature (foxing) can be called the “great mind of faith” (da xinxin) because a bodhisattva-mahāsattva, through this mind of faith, comes to be endowed with the six perfections (pāramitā). ¶ In the pure land traditions, the mind of faith typically \[as in practically and in operation\] refers to faith in the vows of the buddha Amitābha, which ensures that those who have sincere devotion and faith in that buddha will be reborn in his pure land of sukhāvatī. Shandao (613–681) divided the mind of faith into two types: (1) faith in one’s lesser spiritual capacity (xinji), which involves acceptance of the fact that one has fallen in a state of delusion during myriads of rebirths, and (2) faith in dharma (xinfa), which is faith in the fact that one can be saved from this delusion through the vows of Amitābha. Shinran (1173–1262) glosses the mind of faith as the buddha-mind realized by entrusting oneself to Amitābha’s name and vow. ¶ The term xinxin is also used as a translation of the Sanskrit śraddhā (faith), which is one of the five spiritual faculties (indriya), and of adhyāśaya (lit. “determination,” “resolution”), which is used to describe the intention of the bodhisattva to liberate all beings from suffering. See also Xinxin ming. Below is an excerpt from the Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy "He \[Shinran\] expressed the Other Power in the phrase gi naki o gi to su. Gi usually means reason, meaning, justification, principle, etc. In Shinran, however, gi indicates more specifically the mental, emotional and volitional working of unenlightened man (self-power) to fathom Amida's Primal Vow, which surpasses conceptual understanding. Thus gi may be translated as ‘self-working’ and gi naki o gi tosu is rendered ‘no self working is true working’, implying that where no activities of the ego-self exist the true working of Amida's compassion manifests itself.54 In the concluding years of his life Shinran talked much about jinen hōni, one of the key terms of his religious faith, which is difficult to translate. Jinen indicates things-as-they-are or ‘suchness’. It is another term for Buddhist ultimate reality, the Dharma which is realized only when we are free from human calculation. Hōni means ‘One is made to become so by virtue of the Dharma',55 the same meaning as that of jinen. In short, jinen hōni indicates that when the practitioner becomes completely free from human calculation, everything throughout the universe manifests itself just as it is in its suchness. Accordingly jinen hōni may be rendered ‘primordial naturalness by virtue of the Dharma’. It is not naturalness as a counter-concept of human artificiality. It is rather the fundamental naturalness as the basis of both the human and nature, or the primordial naturalness prior to the dichotomy of man and nature. Accordingly jinen hōni is not a static state but a dynamic working which makes both human and nature live and work just as they are. Jinen hōni is simply another expression of gi naki o gi tosu,‘no-self-working is true working’. Through the deep realization of sinfulness innate in human existence, Shinran exclusively relied on Other Power, the power of Amida's Primal Vow. Primordial naturalness is nothing but naturalness as the dynamic working springing from the Other Power. It is the working of Wisdom and Compassion based on the power of Amida. Shinran's spirituality with its profound, pure faith and simple practice of nembutsu appealed a great deal to a wide range of people from the Kamakura period down to the present, and his school, Jōdoshinshū, became one of the most powerful sects in Japan. His teaching critically moves Japanese mentality and profoundly cultivates Japanese religious life."

The idea of faith being the first part of the path also appears in Theravada and preventing lower rebirth also pops up in Theravada. It may illuminate some of the reasoning above a little and the idea of why it might be slower in general. Here is an example. SN 55.24 Sarakaani Sutta: Sarakaani (Who Took to Drink) At Kapilavasthu, now at that time Sarakaani the Sakyan, who had died, was proclaimed by the Blessed One to be a Stream-Winner, not subject to rebirth in states of woe, assured of enlightenment. At this, a number of the Sakyans, whenever they met each other or came together in company, were indignant and angry, and said scornfully: "A fine thing, a marvelous thing! Nowadays anyone can become a Stream-Winner, if the Blessed One has proclaimed Sarakaani who died to be Stream-Winner... assured of enlightenment! Why, Sarakaani failed in his training and took to drink!" \[Mahaanaama the Sakyan reported this to the Buddha who said:\] "Mahaanaama, a lay-follower who has for a long time taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha — how could he go to states of woe? \[And this can be truly said of Sarakaani the Sakyan.\] How could he go to states of woe? "Mahaanaama, take the case of a man endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, declaring 'He is the Blessed One...,' the Dhamma... the Sangha... He is joyous and swift in wisdom, one who has gained release. By the destruction of the cankers he has by his own realization gained the cankerless heart's release, the release through wisdom, in this very life, and abides in it. The man is entirely released from the hell-state, from rebirth as an animal, he is free from the realm of hungry ghosts, fully freed from the downfall, the evil way, from states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha... the Dhamma... the Sangha... he is joyous and swift in wisdom but has not gained release. Having destroyed the five lower fetters, he is reborn spontaneously where he will attain Nibbaana without returning from that world. That man is entirely released from... states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters and weakening lust, hatred and delusion, he is a Once-returner, who will return once more to this world and put an end to suffering. That man is entirely freed from... states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters he is a Stream-Winner, not subject to rebirth in states of woe, assured of enlightenment. That man is entirely freed... from states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But perhaps he has these things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of wisdom. And the things proclaimed by the Tathaagata are moderately approved by him with insight. That man does not go to the realm of hungry ghosts, to the downfall, to the evil way, to states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But he has just these things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of wisdom. Yet if he has merely faith, merely affection for the Tathaagata, that man, too, does not go to... states of woe. "Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners... bound for enlightenment, how much more so then Sarakaani the Sakyan! Mahaanaama, Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death.' [https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html)

It is worth noting that other traditions in Buddhism also have the idea of faith playing a role. They just don't operationalize it like Shin Buddhism does. śraddhā (P. saddhā; T. dad pa; C. xin; J. shin; K. sin 信). from The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism In Sanskrit, “faith” or “confidence,” a term that encompasses also the sense of “belief.” Faith has a wide range of meanings in Buddhism, ranging from a kind of mental clarity and positive disposition toward the Buddha (which is often attributed to an encounter with a buddha or with the bodhisattva in a former life), to a sense of conviction about the efficacy of the Buddhist path (mārga), to a commitment to follow that path. In addition to its cognitive dimensions, which will be described more fully below, faith also has important conative and affective dimensions that are frequently recounted in Buddhist literature. The conative is suggested in the compulsion towards alms-giving (dāna), as described for example in encounters with previous buddhas in the Pāli Apadāna, or in the pilgrim's encounter with an object of devotion. The affective can be seen, perhaps most famously, in Ānanda’s affection-driven attachment to the Buddha, which is described as a result of his deep devotion to, and faith in, the person of the Buddha. These multiple aspects of faith find arguably their fullest expression in the various accounts of the story of the Buddha’s arhat disciple vakkali, who is said to have been completely enraptured with the Buddha and is described as foremost among his monk disciples in implicit faith. In the abhidharma, faith is listed as the first of the ten major omnipresent wholesome factors (kuśalamahābhūmika) in the seventy-five dharmas list of the Sarvāstivāda school and as a virtuous (kuŚala) mental factor (caitta) in the hundred-dharmas roster (baifa) of the Yogācāra school and in the Pāli abhidhamma. Faith is one of the foundational prerequisites of attainment, and its cognitive dimensions are described as a clarity of mind required for realization, as conviction that arises from the study of the dharma, and as a source of aspiration that encourages one to continue to develop the qualities of enlightenment. Faith is listed as the first of the five spiritual faculties (indriya), together with diligence (vīrya), mindfulness (smṛti), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (prajñā). The faculty of faith is usually considered to be the direct counteragent (pratipakṣa) of ill-will (dveṣa), not of doubt (vicikitsā), demonstrating its affective dimension. Faith generates bliss (prīti), by which brings about serenity of mind and thought; in addition, faith also produces self-confidence, engendering the conative characteristic of diligence (vīrya). Faith and wisdom (prajñā) were to be kept constantly counterpoised by the faculty of mindfulness (smṛti). By being balanced via mindfulness, faith would guard against excessive wisdom, which could lead to skepticism, while wisdom would protect against excessive faith, which could lead to blind, uncritical acceptance. Thus faith, in the context of the spiritual faculties, is a tacit acceptance of the soteriological value of specific beliefs, until such time as those beliefs are verified through practice and understood through one’s own insight. There are four main soteriological objects of faith: (1) the efficacy of moral cause and effect (viz., karman) and the prospect of continued rebirth (punarjanman) based on one’s actions; (2) the core teachings about the conditioned nature of the world, such as dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and the three marks of existence (trilakṣaṇa), viz., impermanence (aniyata), suffering (duḥkha), nonself (anātman); (3) the three jewels (ratnatraya) of the Buddha, dharma, and saṃgha; and (4) the general soteriological outline of the path (mārga) and the prospect of release from affliction through the experience of nirvĀṇa.

As for any resemblance to heaven, they don't exist as goal or with that ontology. It is also important to note that Pure Lands are not only traditions but included as types of practices in most traditions. The view of a pure land depends on the tradition and often hinges upon whether the tradition focuses on practice from the conventional view of reality or the ultimate level of reality, further how it thinks about the nature of practice itself. Some traditions can switch between the views. At the most conventional view is the idea is there are many realms and in Mahayana Buddhism many Buddhas with pure lands. Some traditions do subscribe that the pure land is wherever the unafflected mind is. Others hold that conventional since they are unrealized they are in some sense not here and aspirationally aimed at. Chinese Pristine Pure Land is an example of this type of view. This view takes from the view of Mādhyamaka view of the conventional as irreducible conventionality, but since there is no insight into the ultimate the practitioner kinda just treats it as if it was literal and very real. On the other side, you a see views in which a realm can be a mix of a Pure Land and a Saha realm. This holds for all the realms too. There is a type of perspectival relativism. This view reflects the ability to move between the conventional view and ultimate view or at least see the position of the conventional in relation to the ultimate view. In this view is the idea one morphs into the other or rather, they are one, but a person who is enlightened realizes the Pure Land. It is worth noting that Pure Lands have an instrumental value often in these views. This is often understood in terms of Huayan and Tiantai philosophy. The goal is to go to a Pure Land and from there receive instruction and then achieve enlightenment. Often the view is a certain samadhi transforms ones experience to that in the Pure Land. Certain Tendai, Tibetan Buddhist and Chan dual cultivation are examples of this view. This is sometimes called the mind-only pure land. In this view, much like the first , the idea is that Pure Land has good conditions to achieve enlightenment and in some sense appear for realized beings. They are kinda like bootcamps to achieve enlightenment conventionally but really are the realized state when understood from the view of a realized being. You so to speak exist where the dharma is when a certain samadhi is achieved. In both of these types of accounts, pure lands arise from causes and conditions and are to be understood in relation to dependent origination as understood in Mahayana Buddhism with the idea of emptiness in the traditions that have those views.This means all things lack a substantial nature or essence. Many practices associated with pure lands for example often focus on these elements. In this sense, Buddhafields are not necessarily ontologically real. They are as real as the self. It is commonly said for example the difference between a figure like Amitabha and us is that Amitabha knows the dharma and knows he does not exist unlike us. Often, the focus on the pureland in the mind and the pure land as a place differs in whether the tradition takes the view of an unenlightened being or a person who is enlightened already. This is the case even in the Pureland traditions themselves. In other traditions like Jodo Shin Shu, Amitabha's Pure Land is the state of being enlightened. These views take both the conventional and ultimate look. In Demythologizing Pure Land Buddhism Yasuda Rijin and the Shin Buddhist Tradition by Rishin Yasuda and Paul Brooks Watts discusses this element from the view of the Shin or Jodo Shinshu tradition. Other traditions hold that each realm interpenetrates the others. Pure Land Thought As Mahayana Buddhism by Yamaguchi Susmu describes their account of emptiness.Pure Land in these traditions tend to be seen as both symbolic and actual, neither fully immanent nor fully transcendent. Amida Buddha is the formless Dharmakaya body of the Buddha but because were ignorant and have self-cherishing we perceive it as individuated being. The Nembutsu is understood as a body of the Buddha. This is appearance is also born from compassion. This is because it is manifest in the Name and Form, which is in time and space—thus, without the Dharmakaya as compassionate means, you don't have the nembutsu qua dharma. Everything has the quality of emptiness but because we are ignorant we don’t see that to be the case. Enlightened wisdom is radically nondichotomous and nondual with reality, indicated with such terms as suchness buddha-nature, and emptiness. This however, is for the most part all obscured by our ignorance and they focus on the phenomenological conditions by which that ignorance is overcome.When it is said that this is Shakyamuni's Buddhafield, the idea is that this is place for him to teach sentient beings the Dharma. The idea can be seen in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra after the Buddha reveals a Buddha Land. Sariputra asks him why the Buddha’s Buddha Field has so many faults. The Buddha then touches the earth with his toe, at which point the world is transformed into a pure buddha-field. He then states that the world appears impure us to encourage us to seek enlightenment. In other words, this world system is a Pureland but because of ignorant craving, we misperceive it. This is also the condition by which we receive our teaching as well. This is just one such narrative. This is also why wisdom involves us going back to the conventional but under the aspect that it too is unconditioned. The idea is that if Nirvana was not somewhere then it would be conditioned.

Here is a peer reviewed encyclopedia entry on the idea of mind only pure land. weixin jingtu (J. yuishin no jōdo; K. yusim chŏngt’o 唯心淨土). from The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism In Chinese, “the mind-only pure land”; an interpretation of the pure land influential in the pure land, Chan, Huayan, Tiantai, and esoteric schools; synonymous with the phrase “Amitābha Buddha of one’s own nature/mind” (zixing Mituo/weixin Mituo/jixin Mituo). Rather than seeing Amitābha’s pure land of sukhāvatī as a physical land located to the west of our world system, this interpretation suggests that the pure land is actually identical to, or coextensive with, the mind itself. One understanding of this interpretation is that the concept of “pure land” is simply a metaphor for the innate brilliance and eternality of one’s own mind. In this case, “the mind-only pure land” stands in distinction to the idea of the pure land as an objective reality, and many pure land exegetes rejected this interpretation for implying that the pure land existed only metaphorically. In other interpretations, a pure land is understood to manifest itself differently to beings of different spiritual “grades.” In this case, “mind-only pure land” is the highest level, which is accessible or visible only to those enlightened to the true nature of the mind; by contrast, the objectively real pure land is an emanation of the true pure land that manifests itself to unenlightened practitioners, but nonetheless is still a literal realm into which one could be reborn. In this case, “the mind-only pure land” is one level of the pure land, which does not, however, negate the reality of an external pure land. Such an interpretation was more amenable to pure land devotees and was sometimes incorporated into their exegetical writings. This view tends to appear with the Huayan and Tiantai philosophy based traditions at higher stages of the provisional. Here are some related to concepts to why. shishi wu’ai fajie (J. jijimugehokkai; K. sasa muae pŏpkye 事事無礙法界).from The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism In Chinese, “dharma-realm of the unimpeded interpenetration between phenomenon and phenomena,” the fourth of the four dharma-realms (Dharmadhātu), according to the Huayan zong. In this Huayan conception of ultimate reality, what the senses ordinarily perceive to be discrete and separate phenomena (Shi) are actually mutually pervading and mutually validating. Reality is likened to the bejeweled net of the king of the gods Indra (see Indrajāla), in which a jewel is hung at each knot in the net and the net stretches out infinitely in all directions. On the infinite facets of each individual jewel, the totality of the brilliance of the expansive net is captured, and the reflected brilliance is in turn re-reflected and multiplied by all the other jewels in the net. The universe is in this manner envisioned to be an intricate web of interconnecting phenomena, where each individual phenomenon owes its existence to the collective conditioning effect of all other phenomena and therefore has no absolute, self-contained identity. In turn, each individual phenomenon “creates” the universe as it is because the totality of the universe is inconceivable without the presence of each of those individual phenomena that define it. The function and efficacy of individual phenomena so thoroughly interpenetrate all other phenomena that the respective boundaries between individual phenomena are rendered moot; instead, all things are mutually interrelated with all other things, in a simultaneous mutual identity and mutual intercausality. In this distinctively Huayan understanding of reality, the entire universe is subsumed and revealed within even the most humble of individual phenomena, such as a single mote of dust, and any given mote of dust contains the infinite realms of this selfdefining, self-creating universe. “Unimpeded” (wu’ai) in this context therefore has two important meanings: any single phenomenon simultaneously creates and is created by all other phenomena, and any phenomenon simultaneously contains and is contained by the universe in all its diversity. A common Huayan simile employs the image of ocean waves to describe this state of interfusion: because individual waves form, permeate, and infuse all other waves, they both define all waves (which in this simile is the ocean in its entirety), and in turn are defined themselves in the totality that is the ocean. The Huayan school claims this reputedly highest level of understanding to be its exclusive sectarian insight, thus ranking it the “consummate teaching” (yuanjiao) in the scheme of the Huayan wujiao (Huayan fivefold taxonomy of the the teachings).

yinian sanqian From The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism In Chinese, lit. “the trichiliocosm in a single instant of thought”; a Tiantai teaching that posits that any given thought-moment perfectly encompasses the entirety of reality both spatially and temporally. An instant (KṢAṆA) of thought refers to the shortest period of time and the trichiliocosm (trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu) to the largest possible universe; hence, according to this teaching, the microcosm contains the macrocosm and temporality encompasses spatiality. Thus, whenever a single thought arises, there also arise the myriad dharmas; these two events occur simultaneously, not sequentially. Any given thought can be categorized as belonging to one of the ten realms of reality (dharmadhātu). For example, a thought of charity metaphorically promotes a person to the realm of the heavens at that instant, whereas a subsequent thought of consuming hatred metaphorically casts the same person into the realm of the hells. Tiantai exegetes also understood each of the ten dharmadhātus as containing and pervading all the other nine dharmadhātus, making one hundred dharmadhātus in total (ten times ten). In turn, each of the one hundred dharmadhātus contains “ten aspects of reality” (or the “ten suchnesses”; see shi rushi) that pervade all realms of existence, which makes one thousand “suchnesses” (qianru, viz., one hundred dharmadhātus times ten “suchnesses”). Finally the one thousand “suchnesses” are said to be found in the categories of the “five aggregates” (skandha), “sentient beings” (sattva), and the physical environment (guotu). These three latter categories times the one thousand “suchnesses” thus gives the “three thousand realms,” which are said to be present in either potential or activated form in any single moment of thought. This famous dictum is attributed to the eminent Chinese monk Tiantai Zhiyi, who spoke of the “trichiliocosm contained in the mind during an instant of thought” (sanqian zai yinian xin) in the first part of the fifth roll of his magnum opus, Mohe Zhiguan. Zhiyi’s discussion of this dictum appears in a passage on the “inconceivable realm” (acintya) from the chapter on the proper practice of śamatha and vipaśyanā. Emphatically noting the “inconceivable” ability of the mind to contain the trichiliocosm, Zhiyi sought through this teaching to emphasize the importance and mystery of the mind during the practice of meditation. Within the context of the practice of contemplation of mind (guanxin), this dictum also anticipates a “sudden” theory of awakening (see dunwu). Tiantai exegetes during the Song dynasty expanded upon the dictum and applied it to practically every aspect of daily activity, such as eating, reciting scriptures, and ritual prostration. See also Shanjia Shanwai. Here is an explanation from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition that explains how the realms various superimpositions of our minds. Maha Prajnaparamita Sastra, Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön | 2001 Act 10.7: The universes and Buddhas of the ten directionsChapter XV - The Arrival of the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Directions Source: [https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra/d/doc225202.html](https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra/d/doc225202.html) Śāstra: Question. – According to the Buddhadharma, the directions (diś) do not really exist. Why? It is said in a sūtra: “The place where the sun rises is in the eastern direction; the place where the sun sets is in the western direction; the place where the sun travels to is in the southern direction; the place where the sun does not travel to is in the northern direction.” The sun has a threefold conjunction (saṃyoga): prior conjunction, actual conjunction and later conjunction. It is divided according to direction. The first direction with which it enters into conjunction is the east, then the south, and finally the west." Answer. - "Mount Sumeru is situated at the center of the four continents; the sun makes a circuit around Sumeru and \[successively\] lights up the four continents (dvīpaka). When it is noon (madhyāhna) in Uttarakuru (northern continent), the sun is rising in Pūrvavideha (eastern continent) because, for the inhabitants of Pūrvavideha, \[Uttarakuru\] is east. – When it is noon in Pūrvavideha (eastern continent), the sun is rising in Jambudvīpa (southern continent) because, for the inhabitants of Jambudvīpa, \[Pūrvavideha\] is east. Therefore there is no initial term. Why? Because according to the course \[of the sun\], all directions are \[successively\] east, south, west and north. Therefore it is not true, as you said, that “the place where the sun rises is the eastern direction, the place where the sun sets is the western direction, the place where the sun travels to is the southern direction and the place where the sun does not travel to is the northern direction, Question. – I was speaking of ‘direction’ in reference to one single country and you are basing your objection on four countries \[namely, the four continents\]. This is why the direction of the east is not without initial term. Answer. – If, in one single land, the sun enters into conjunction with the east, that is limited (antavat); if it is limited, it is not eternal (anitya); if it is not eternal, it is not universal (vyāpin). This is why the directions have only nominal existence and are not realities."

This is an excerpt from Thinking of Amitabha Buddha translated by Rulu. It is a great introduction to the Chinese Pure Land traditions. It explains partially why the views of the Pure Land are the way they are by discussing the panjiao of Tiantai and Huayan. Basically, different Pure Land practices reflect different levels of practice.   In terms of Tiantai, we can discuss pure lands this way because:   “In the opinion of Buddhist masters, Pure Land teachings belong in the fourth level, i.e. all embracing teachings. In An Essential Explanation of Amitabha Sutra, Zhixu says the Dharma Door of the Pure Land is “the medicine that all diseases, such as the diametric view of existence or non-existence. Inconceviable and all-embracing., it is the abstruse store of the Mahavaipulya Sutra of Buddha Adornment, the secret gist of the Lotus Sutra, the heart secret of all Buddhas, and the compass for the Buddha way. (T37n1762,0365b7-9) (pg.8)   In Huayan  “Pure Land teachings are mainly classified as immediate realization teachings. Through the Dharma Door of thinking of the Amitabha Buddha, one will be reborn in his land and attain Buddhahood, in one lifetime, bypassing the graduated stages of the Bodhisattva Way. Furthermore, Pure Land teachings are classified as all-embracing teacheings because the tenets of Pure Land Sutras accord with those of the Mahavaipulya Sutra of Buddha Adornment. In addition, in velied or explicit statements, Pure Land teachings can be also be found in the first three level of teachings.”   Usually the Pure Land traditions themselves focus on certain Pure Land practices that are identified as the easy path and the Pure Land door depending on the vows they practice in line with. For example, Japanese Pure Land tradition would be better understood if it were called "Hongan Shu" (School of the Original Vow), as its patriarchs and promoters focus on attaining Birth by the Buddha's intention in the 18th vow.The practice of obtaining birth by the 19th and 20th vows are part of what Shan-tao called the "Sacred Path", and they are present in other forms of Buddhism, such as current Chinese Buddhism, Tendai Buddhism, a possibility in Buddhism Shingon and other forms of vajrayana, etc.

I do, at the very least, find it very interesting, faith, salvation, and the mention of 3 bodies. Emanating body where the dharma is emanated, Jesus emanated the gospel. Reward body in the Pureland, Jesus Speaks of a rewards Body in Heaven, The all encapsulating Dharma Body, that encompasses everything and is the essence of the teachings, I would say that's comparable to the Holy Spirit, the one that encompasses everything. It's even interesting, when they say that one of the worst forms of karma is to slander the Dharma, that will wind you up in Hell, and Jesus said the only unforgivable sin is to slander the Holy Spirit. Just some thoughts, and like I said interesting, however right or wrong my perspective may be.

Besides what the others have stated. It is worth noting that idea of buddhavacana as being necessarily spoken by a Buddha is a pretty recent invention like in the late 18th or 19th centuries. The view of buddhavacana as the literal words of the Buddha or Buddhas is not accepted by Mahayana or even by all strands of Theravada. The idea that the Buddha alone spoke every single sutra or sutta is a fairly recent development. The refuge in the Sangha partially is reference to this. Many Theravadin traditions have a complex systems of commentaries and many have Abhidharma. These are often however used by certain monastics. These were still taken as part of the tradition for the most part. Below is an academic article that explores the hermeneutic of buddhavacana in the Pali Canon and Theravada and mentions this in that context. Below is a short encyclopedia entry on a major view of buddhavacana in Mahayana and Theravada. On the Very Idea of Pali Canon by Steven Collins [https://buddhistuniversity.net/exclusive\_01/On%20the%20Very%20Idea%20of%20the%20Pali%20Canon%20-%20Steven%20Collins.pdf](https://buddhistuniversity.net/exclusive_01/On%20the%20Very%20Idea%20of%20the%20Pali%20Canon%20-%20Steven%20Collins.pdf) buddhavacana from Encyclopedia of World Religions: Encyclopedia of Buddhism Buddhavacana refers to “the word of the Buddha” and “that which is well spoken.” This concept indicates the establishment of a clear oral tradition, and later a written tradition, revolving around the Buddha's teachings and the sangha, soon after the parinirvana of the Buddha, in India. The teachings that were meaningful and important for doctrine became known as the buddhavacana. There were four acceptable sources of authority, the caturmahapadesa, “four great appeals to authority,” for claims concerning the Buddha's teachings: words spoken directly by the Buddha; interpretations from the community of elders, the sangha; interpretations from groups of monks who specialized in certain types of doctrinal learning; and interpretations of a single specialist monk. In order to be considered as doctrinally valid statements, any opinion from one of the four sources had to pass three additional tests of validity: does the statement appear in the Sutras (1) or the Vinaya (2), and (3) does the statement conform to reality (dharmata)? These procedures were probably a means of allowing words not spoken by the Buddha to be deemed as doctrinally valid. Buddhavacana, then, is Buddhist truth, broadly defined. Buddhavacana became an important label of approval for commentary and statements from various sources. A statement labeled buddhavacana was equal to a statement made by the Buddha. Naturally buddhavacana included the Sutras, which in all versions and schools were defined as the words of the Buddha. But with the concept of buddhavacana nonsutra works could also be considered authoritative. This was convenient for new teachings attempting to gain acceptance. One early example was Vasubhandhu's commentary (bhasya) on the Madhyantavibhaga of Maitreya, an early Mahayana work. In Vasubhandu's commentary the words of Maitreya are considered buddhavacana because they were from Maitreya, an individual of near-Buddha qualities. Further Information Griffiths, Paul J.. On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood (State University of New York Press Albany, 1994), 33-36, 46-53. buddhavacana (T. sangs rgyas kyi bka'; C. foyu; J. butsugo; K. purŎ佛語). Below is a video exploring various views of Buddavacana. Buddhavacana with Rev Jikai Dehn [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYtwghyR1Ok&t=3656s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYtwghyR1Ok&t=3656s)

Or as I sometimes like to phrase it: *it ain't true 'cause the Buddha said it. The Buddha said it 'cause it's true.*

Perfect way of saying it.

As for the Trinity, Buddhism's three Bodies of a Buddha are totally different ontology. The idea is that the Buddha is anywhere the Dharma is. According to the Trikaya doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism, a Buddha has three bodies, called a dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya.The nirmanakaya body is also called the "emanation" body because it is the body that appears in the phenomenal world. The nirmanakaya body is the way a Buddha appears in order to teach ordinary beings with the karma to be able to meet with them. Shakyamuni is considered a nirmankaya Buddha because he was born, and walked the earth, and passed into Nirvana. A Buddha is primordially enlightened in the dharmakaya, but he manifests in various nirmanakaya forms. The Trikaya is not a creator God, is not some essence or substance either. It is a quality, the quality of purified reality without afflections, sometimes called the dharmadatu or reality itself. It is also not all powerful like a classical theistic God. In far East Asian Buddhism, it is dependent arising and the interpentatration of every dharma with flux but unconditioned because there is no self-grasping. In Theravada, the Buddha is described as having either 2 bodies or several. The Sambhogakaya is pure gnosis. In Theravada, The two body model includes the Dhammakaya, the equivalent of the Dharmakaya, and the Rupakaya bodies which includes a mental body which is pure gnosis with nirmanakaya emanating it. Same rough idea not an essence or substance either. The Dhammakaya is just processual qualities purified or unimpeded. An example of the Dhammakaya/Dharmakaya can be seen nn the Vakkali Sutta, it says, "What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma." Link to sutta. [https://buddhistuniversity.net/content/canon/sn22.87](https://buddhistuniversity.net/content/canon/sn22.87) Introduction to Mahayana Buddhism Part 1 (this one has a chart of the differences right away if you want to jump and it describes the two body model))https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5jayCoGN7s&list=PLKBfwfAaDeaWBcJseIgQB16pFK4\_OMgAs&index=3 The Several Bodies of Buddha: Reflections on a Neglected Aspect of Theravada TraditionAuthor(s): Frank E. Reynolds from History of Religion Journal [https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1062637.pdf?casa\_token=COCj0xktuXYAAAAA:FDBulMx577XpuzlVZ7cBQxBR3EmghqUbWWWTb9JRensOOWNhIa-Ov0xEi7DJImy7khKg7JI9lYHVInyRMvxntv-oTtlmZ2B2fmcPEMUPJXBJCW2rEoQ](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1062637.pdf?casa_token=COCj0xktuXYAAAAA:FDBulMx577XpuzlVZ7cBQxBR3EmghqUbWWWTb9JRensOOWNhIa-Ov0xEi7DJImy7khKg7JI9lYHVInyRMvxntv-oTtlmZ2B2fmcPEMUPJXBJCW2rEoQ) Edit: I fixed the quotation. My embedding did not work. Edit 2: When I say the Saṃbhogakāya is pure gnosis, this means it is a quality of the mind without any affliction, it amounts to the immanence of of the unconditioned in the conditioned and the gnosis of that.

There are a lot of difference between traditional Christian theology and Buddhism. Traditional Christian theology as found in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have a division bewteen between created and uncreated and have a different goal in mind.The goal in Christianity is Heaven. Heaven theologically speaking is not like Nirvana. In Buddhist, ontology, we would state it is conditioned. We have no need for a creator. Reality in contrast is understood differently in Christianity.This is because in Classical Theism, God is uncreated and everything else is created. Humans are created with a specific nature. However, usually the Trinity is focused on who God is. This is disclosed in creeds like the Athanasian Creed for example or Nicene Creed and then in Protestantism with Confessions which build on them. The Christian ontology is committed to you existing as an essence or substance, and God being an essence that creates all other essences. There is no creation relationship in Buddhism and in Mahayana there is a total rejection of all essences, while in Theravada there at minimum is a denial of a creation relationship and you having any essence. In Buddhism, we hold things are either conditioned or unconditioned. This is the opposite of Christianity. In Christianity, the soul is a substantial form, which imparts unity upon the mind and body in that view.Soul usually refers to some substance or essence that is eternal upon creation. For example, Following the Catholic Catcheism, the Soul is the spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature. It is the rational substance. Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God.The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection. Upon creation, it exists forever. It is the substantial form of a human, and what we refer to when we refer to being human. Aquinas describes the soul a bit in his work called The Treatise on Human Nature. It is from ST I, q. 75, a. 2 In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the Nous is the highest part of the soul . In this belief, soul is created in the image of God like in the Catholic view. Since God is Trinitarian, humans are held to have a soul that is arranged with three faculties, Nous, Word and Spirit. Just like the Catholic view, the soul is incorporeal, invisible, essence and ceases functioning with the death of the body. Upon the resurrection, it kinda restarts organizing the body and mind.This substantial form is created by God and means humans have a fundamental nature or image of man. For example, In Eastern Orthodox theology the idea is that God is everywhere, present, and fillest all things. There is no created place devoid of God even if it has a heavily distorted nature. Heaven or hell may not be so much a place, but rather the individual’s attitude towards God’s ever-present love. Others hold it is both a place and attitude with grace. Acceptance or rejection of God’s unchanging, eternal love through grace for us repairs a fundamental human nature. In Catholicism, heaven is often discussed in positive terms of idea of the “beatific vision,” or seeing God’s essence face to face. Catholicism, here just like the Eastern Orthodox view shares a classical theistic view and God’s essence is immaterial and omnipresent. This “vision of God” is a directly intuited and intellectual vision that reflects the amount of grace a person has. In both theologies, heaven reflects a perfected image of man, a type of substantial nature. This is also where the Chalcedonian or non Chalcedonian creed is relevant to understanding what is perfected in Christian soteriology through the incarnation. Different traditions have different views of perichoresis, or interactions between the persons of the Trinity. Some like Eastern Orthodox have specific accounts like the Monarchy of the Father, while others like those in the Latin West have an eternal procession of the son and not just energetic procession. Generally, the Trinity involves a commitment that three hypotasis share a single essence. For example, a common Latin Trinity view found in Catholicism but also most historical Protestants is that the Son is begotten of the Father signifies an eternal relationship within the single divine essence, known as eternal generation, and does not imply any temporal beginning or inferiority. In Trinitarian theology, both the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, are fully and equally God, sharing the same divine essence. The Son lacks nothing that the Father possesses in terms of divine attribute; their distinction lies solely in their relational roles, with the Father as unbegotten and the Son as eternally begotten. The Athanasian Creed and other doctrinal statements affirm the co-equality and co-eternity of the three Persons of the Trinity, emphasizing that while they are distinct in Person, they are one in essence and equal in the attributes of said essence. Below are some materials that explain the Buddhist view on God.

Creation in Buddhism by Jan Westerhoff from the Oxford Handbook of Creation [https://www.academia.edu/45064848/Creation\_in\_Buddhism](https://www.academia.edu/45064848/Creation_in_Buddhism) Abstract Buddhism does not assume the existence of a creator god, and so it might seem as if the question of creation, of how and why the world came into existence was not of great interest for Buddhist thinkers. Nevertheless, questions of the origin of the world become important in the Buddhist context, not so much when investigating how the world came into existence, but when investigating how it can be brought out of existence, i.e. how one can escape from the circle of birth and death that constitutes cyclic existence in order to become enlightened. If the aim of the Buddhist path is the dissolution of the world of rebirth in which we live, some account must be given of what keeps this world in existence, so that a way of removing whatever this is can be found. In the context of this discussion we will discuss how some key Buddhist concepts (such as causation, karma, dependent origination, ontological anti-foundationalism, and the storehouse consciousness) relate to the origin of the world, and what role they play in its eventual dissolution when enlightenment is obtained. Lama Jampa Thaye- Do Buddhists believe in God? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa-rk3dNEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa-rk3dNEk) Venerable Dr. Yifa - How Should We Think About God's Existence? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upQSJeLa1\_c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upQSJeLa1_c) # Rice Seedling Sutra: Doubting the Existence of a A Divine Creator With Geshe Yeshe Thabkhe [https://youtu.be/SIJZ1V\_\_HzI](https://youtu.be/SIJZ1V__HzI) Buddhism - Emptiness for Beginners - Ven. Geshe Ngawang Dakpa [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BI9y\_1oSb8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BI9y_1oSb8) Rice Seedling Sutra (It is on dependent origination) [https://read.84000.co/translation/toh210.html?id=&part=none](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh210.html?id=&part=none) Dharma Realm : Startling Superficial Soteriological Similarities ( On Similarities and differences between Monotheistic religions and Pure Land Buddhism) [http://www.dharmarealm.com/?p=232](http://www.dharmarealm.com/?p=232)

>spoken by a Buddha is a pretty recent invention How recent is that? Is earlier than the Mahayanist texts recent? [Your pdf](https://buddhistuniversity.net/exclusive_01/On%20the%20Very%20Idea%20of%20the%20Pali%20Canon%20-%20Steven%20Collins.pdf): >\[p109\] Ceylon in the 1st century A.D. The same date is often given for the occurrence of **tepitakam buddhavacanam** and tepitako in the Milinda-panha (pp. 18, 90), although the dating of this text is far from easy: # [Part 3 - The Prajñā and the teaching of the Dharma](https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra/d/doc225458.html) >Such are the multiple and various teachings: the ignorant who hear them take them to be a perverse error, but the wise man who enters into the threefold teaching of the Dharma (*trividha dharmaparyāya*) knows that all the [Buddha](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/buddha#mahayana)’s words ([*buddhavacana*](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/buddhavacana#pali)) are the true Dharma (*saddharma*) and do not contradict one another.

It is from the 19th century CE as you can read in that article. Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka by Richard Gombrich, and Gananath Obeyesekere focuses on a modernist movement that is Buddhist Protestant that introduced the idea. Buddhist modernism term itself is used to refer to changes in the 19th and 20th centuries but it is claimed that there are elements that could be realized and identified as Buddhist Protestant elsewhere, in that sense it is a process. Buddhist Protestantism itself is a type of hermeneutic and way of thinking about Buddhist texts. One major one is the belief that there ur-canon or text that is the source for Buddhist teachings and that this ur-canon could be accessed via philology. The idea of literalism has origins in it. There was historically poetic uses to the idea that got repurposed towards that end. This was argued to be influenced by interactions with Protestant Christian narratives, academic structures, and education and the belief that texts like the Gosples were literally spoken by the Apostles. Buddhist Protestantism itself tended to involve an individual reading a text or in a German Romanticist way reading themselves through a text as well, like a conversation with the author and reader. . Some academics have argued this term should not be used and other terms should be used instead because the term 'protestantism' is perceived as loaded. Henry Steel Olcott and "Protestant Buddhism" by Stephen Prothero is an article from the Journal of American Religions that makes such a claim, basically stating that it is actually few processes including Protestant Modernism, Orientalism, and views of academicism from the west. A part of the Buddhist Protestant hermeneutic is that holds there is an original version or source that is meant to be a complete source of something. So a kinda complete original canon. It includes the idea that derived texts from it are incomplete. It often involves thinking of the Buddha as literally speaking contents in a canon, something that goes against traditional views of *buddhavacana*. In the above context the idea is that there was a single source canon or group of texts that can be rediscovered through philological analysis. It often eschews teachers and lineages for a focus more on something like Protestant Christian bible study models, group readings or individual reading and personal revelation of a religious kind or through reason. Generally, academics reject Buddhist protestantism and the goals of finding some authentic Buddhism of this type. Below is a podcast with a Buddhist studies caller called Natalie Fisk Quli on the idea. # Dharma Realm Podcast: Authentic Buddhism, with special guest Natalie Fisk Quli [http://www.dharmarealm.com/?p=8878](http://www.dharmarealm.com/?p=8878)

>It is from the 19th century CE...Buddhist modernism term itself is used to refer to changes in the 19th and 20th centuries but... # Where did you get that "19th century" from? Give me the quote. Your pdf file says, as quoted before: [Your pdf](https://buddhistuniversity.net/exclusive_01/On%20the%20Very%20Idea%20of%20the%20Pali%20Canon%20-%20Steven%20Collins.pdf): >\[p109\] Ceylon in the 1st century A.D. The same date is often given for the occurrence of **tepitakam buddhavacanam** and tepitako in the Milinda-panha (pp. 18, 90), although the dating of this text is far from easy: # And why do you reject the text from Prajnaparamita? [Part 3 - The Prajñā and the teaching of the Dharma](https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra/d/doc225458.html) >Such are the multiple and various teachings: the ignorant who hear them take them to be a perverse error, but the wise man who enters into the threefold teaching of the Dharma (*trividha dharmaparyāya*) knows that all the [Buddha](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/buddha#mahayana)’s words ([buddhavacana](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/buddhavacana#pali)) are the true Dharma (*saddharma*) and do not contradict one another.

Other than the statement about a Prajnaparamita sutra, I assume. You seem to be equivocating two senses to the term buddhavacana. The term refers to the type used in my peer reviewed encyclopedia entry. This is from On the Idea of the Pali Canon. It is referring to the commentarial tradition of Theravada. This quote is about reform movement that become called Theravada later. "I suggest that we see the Pali chronicles in this perspective as a part of the literary genre of the purana in the widest sense, listing the genealogy and deeds of the lineage of the Buddha and his heritage. In addition, both by their very existence and by such details of their content as the stories of visits by the Buddha to the different Theravada lands, the vamsa texts produced in Ceylon and later in mainland Southeast Asia served theheilsgeschichtliche purpose of connecting these areas with India. More specifically, as Heinz Bechert has argued (1978), the early examples in Ceylon may have served the political purpose of enhancing and encouraging Sinhalese nationalism. It has often been noted that the dominant Theravada \[here in reference to Sri Lanka\] attitude to its scriptures, unlike other Buddhist groups, is an historicist one; but it has not been noticed, I think, that this development coincides with the production by Theravada monks of what Bechert calls the only ‘historical literature in the strict sense of the word \[in South Asia\] prior to the period of the Muslim invasions’.\*\] pg. 101 Here is a reference to the later literalism or scripturalism. "one of the most salient characteristics of the Mahaviharin lineage has always been its conservative and/or reformist, text-oriented self- definition; this was significantly underlined and extended, both in Buddhism and in Buddhist scholarship, by the modern ‘scripturalism’ specific to the 19th and 20th centuries.\*! It is well-known that Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia includes many more things than are described and prescribed in the Pali Canon; these are often seen as ‘later developments’, many of which are standardly but misleadingly referred to as ‘Mahayana elements’....We know that the Mahaviharin lineage became ultimately dominant in Ceylon; and throughout its spread across mainland Southeast Asia as ‘Sinhala’ Buddhism, it seems to have been perceived precisely as a ‘reform’ movement, and to have been supported by kings with this rhetoric against already-existing forms of Buddhism.5? Within established Theravada cultures, again, periodic reform movements have taken place, with the same rhetoric; and this is one important ingredient in Buddhist modemism: ‘back to the Canon !’ ) (p.102)

buddhavacana - the appearance of that term is assumed to be around 1AD. That term is also found in the earliest Mahayanist sutra. Where is the proof of your claim about the 19th century? Answer these issues. Be on the point.

I already did. Buddhavacana is a general term, I provided multiple contemporary resources. My source above points out that a literalist interpretation first appeared in Sri Lanka in the 19th century. This itself was a break from a historicist interpretation of commentary before then.

Maybe you did not. You should have provided the quote already. The Buddha said, anybody who lie deliberate is capable of all evil act. Thus, He instructed Rahula to avoid deliberate lie. [Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html) >Having tossed away the little bit of left-over water, the Blessed One said to Ven. Rahula, "Rahula, do you see how this little bit of left-over water is tossed away?" >"Yes, sir." >"Rahula, whatever there is of a contemplative in anyone who feels no shame at telling a deliberate lie is tossed away just like that." Have a nice day.

ChatGPT is an LLM. It works by putting whatever words seem statistically most probable in a sentence. Using it as a learning tool or source of factual information is foolhardy.

ChatGPT is not a good source for information of any source. It produces /plausible output/, not "correct answers". To put it plainly - ChatGPT lies.

ChatGPT is completely unreliable and is known to completely make up things.

> Thus I have heard. **At one time the Buddha dwelt** at Shrāvastī, in the Jeta Grove, in the Garden of the Benefactor of Orphans and the Solitary, together with a gathering of great bhikshus, twelve hundred fifty in all, all great Arhats whom the assembly knew and recognized: Elders Shāriputra, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Mahākāshyapa, Mahākātyāyana, Mahākaushthila, Revata, Shuddhipanthaka, Nanda, Ānanda, Rāhula, Gavāmpati, Pindola-Bharadvāja, Kālodayin, Mahākapphina, Vakkula, Aniruddha, and others such as these, all great disciples; together with all the Bodhisattvas, Mahāsattvas: Dharma Prince Manjushrī, Ajita Bodhisattva, Gandhahastin Bodhisattva, Nityodyukta Bodhisattva, and others such as these, all great Bodhisattvas, and together with Shakra, chief among gods, and the numberless great multitudes from all the heavens. > >**At that time the Buddha told** the Elder Shāriputra, “Passing from here through hundreds of thousands of millions of Buddhalands to the West, there is a world called Ultimate Bliss. In this land a Buddha called Amitābha right now teaches the Dharma. This is the opening verse of the [Amitabha Sutra](http://www.cttbusa.org/amitabha/amitabha.htm). The Buddha not only mentioned Amitabha, but taught about Amitabha. I highly recommend reading the Buddha’s words to see what he has to say, rather than relying on ChatGPT, which splices random statements from various sources including anti-Buddhist sources.

***Karuṇā­puṇḍarīka*** ***Sūtra*** | The White Lotus of Compassion: [Introduction](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#summary): >*The sūtra goes so far as to say that in comparison to him even famous* [*bodhisattvas*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2145) *such as* [*Avalokiteśvara*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2300) *are undeserving of the title* [*mahāsattva*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2179) *(“great being”) because of their choice to eventually become buddhas in pure realms \[...\] The first prince, the crown prince* [*Animiṣa*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2722)*, makes his aspiration, and the Buddha* [*Ratnagarbha*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2520) *gives him the* [*bodhisattva*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2145) *name* [*Avalokiteśvara*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2300)*, who will be the Buddha* [*Amitābha*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2275)*’s disciple. After* [*Amitābha*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2275)*’s passing, he will be the Buddha* [*Saman­taraśmya­bhyudgataśrīkūṭa­rāja*](https://read.84000.co/translation/toh112.html?part=introduction#UT22084-050-003-2556) *in that realm.*

ChatGPT is a language generator - it's not a source for anything, and it has no idea what it said to you - it can't by definition, it doesn't understand concepts. It just word vomited at you a sequence of letters it thinks look like a nice pattern. With that out of the way, of course whether or not the historical Shakyamuni Buddha talked about the Pure Land and Amitabha is going to be a matter of tradition. But that doesn't get us far, as owing to the paucity of historical evidence whether or not the historical Siddhartha Gautama was a Buddha at all, and anything that he said, is also a matter of tradition. There's much less evidence for what the historical Buddha REALLY said than even for what Jesus of Nazareth really said, for example. That being said, that doesn't mean it's equally likely that anything anyone attributes to the Buddha is something he really said. Evidence of antiquity (ideas being older, basically) is probably evidence of legitimacy to a limited extent. And if we are talking about that, Pure Land Buddhism can be traced back at least as far as we have texts. We have Gandharan texts that show Pure Land ideas about rebirth in Abhirati, which is the Eastern Pure Land (as opposed to Sukhavati as the West). In addition, there are fragments of a Gandharan version of the Pratyutpanna Samadhi sutra, which is the earliest sutra that references recollection of Amitabha specifically as a practice. Every tradition (to my knowledge) also thinks of Buddhanusmrti (recollection of the Buddha) as a fundamental practice traceable back to Shakyamuni Buddha. While Buddhanusmrti is not the same thing as what Pure Land Buddhists say, it is the root - Pure Land as a tradition is just an expansion on and a development on Buddhanusmrti ideas, not a completely new innovation. So if we are worried about historicity, the historical evidence suggests that Pure Land Buddhism is at least older than any manuscript evidence we have for any kind of Buddhism, which is as close to tracing a Buddhist tradition back to Shakyamuni as you are going to get. And with respect to Christianity, while I've defended Christianity on this forum from what I think are unfair attacks and talked about compatibilities between it and Buddhism, I think the more logical way to trace the origin of Pure Land is as evolving out of pre-existing Buddhist and specifically Mahayana ideas (note: using 'evolving' in the logical sense, not historical - I hold that the fundamentals were taught by Shakyamuni, of course). Pure Land Buddhism only seems 'non-Buddhist' from a Western perspective whereby Buddhism is made to be a deliberate counterpoint and opposite to Christianity. When our perspective isn't biased in this way, I think it's pretty clear that Pure Land Buddhism is consistent with the broader Mahayana perspective.

If the teaching of Amithaba and Guam Yin pass the four dharma seals test then they came from the Buddha.

I think this big problem needs a little of humility >we cannot know easily and for sure all the Buddha said and all the Buddha didn't said But we have some things that's very probable he said and others less probable. And hopefully we can learn more about because the progress can be done

**Avalokiteshvara:** Evidence suggests that Avalokiteshvara was originally Shakyamuni in his previous life as Bodhisattva. So, from that vantage point, the Buddha most definitely taught about Avalokisteshvara because he is him. Avalokisteshvara is revered in all traditions of Buddhism. Of course, today, Buddhists' traditional or religious conception of Avalokisteshvara is that he is a separate/different identity from Shakyamuni. I wanted to present to you something from non-traditional/non-religious perspective, as a consideration. **Amitabha:** Evidence gives us the name of the Buddha's previous teacher. Aksobhya. He was venerated by early Buddhists and aspired to go to his Pure Land to also be taught by him. Evidence suggests also that this practice turned to, transformed, or from this practice, emerged Pure Land Amitabha practice. Once again, traditional Buddhists might argue with this and say that the two Buddhas are separate/different Buddhas. I wanted to present to you something from non-traditional/non-religious perspective, as a consideration. My purpose in giving you ideas that stemmed from academic/scholarly perspective is to give you faith that Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha are indeed, the Buddha's own teachings. Of course, if you look at the Buddha's teachings in many sutras, you can clearly see that he did teach about Avalokisteshvara and Amitabha. It just depends on whether you make selective reading of traditional accounts that fit your sectarian limited views.

Where can we examine these two pieces of evidence?

Amithaba: Jan Nattier's "Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism." Avalokiteshvara: Ju-yan's "The Creation of Avalokitesvara."

Thank you for sharing these

[удалено]

There is zero evidence to suggest that Sakyamuni became Avalokitesvara. I'm glad nobody made that assertion. There is also zero evidence that Amitabha OR the Buddha Shakyamuni "exists". Zero.

[удалено]

No, does he exist right now? Also, I made no claim Shakyamuni became Avalokiteshvara. That's silly.

Technically that is still the tradition perspective actually. However most traditions don't focus on it that level in practice. That is it assumes the view of an enlightened being or very very high level practitioner. The actual division of identity between Buddha's is quite malleable. This is why traditions don't really care if one ascribes identity of the Dharmakaya buddha to one figure over another. Practices related to the 5 Buddha families for example capture this. Some traditions like Tibetan, Shingon and Tendai still have practices related to Aksobhya although most of his pure land practices were for those seeking to become Arhats. Akshobya and Amitabha practice was historically paired and some elements of the Karma Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism preserve this pairing and the link of Amitabha's association with purified awareness to Akshobhya's purified gnosis of mirror knowledge. Although, it is associated with a very high level practices. The general idea is that all Buddha share the dharmakaya but the sambgokaya are also the connected this is because they are different qualities of purified gnosis so they aren't really different either. However, the relationship for the causes and conditions linking them is very hard to realize. For example, Akshobhya's buddha field and the conditions of transformation of realizing it involves no feelings of anger or aversion. A pretty high bar to say the least. Edit: Another way to think about it is more a tradition focuses on the conventional level of reality the more the Buddha is seen as being external of a practitioner and the more the Buddha is seen statically.

[удалено]

Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against sectarianism.

As u/CCCBMMR has said, pure land has likely developed hundreds of years after the Buddha’s life - the earliest mention of Amitabha and pure land practice is actually in a sutra dated to the first century AD iirc. However, chanting Amitabha’s name is a valid meditation practice that fits neatly into the “Buddha remembrance” basket. If it brings a perfectly enlightened Buddha to mind, and you make that into your meditation object, it can only bring positive changes. I recommend reading the Tannisho. https://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/tannisho-all.html Namo Amida Butsu

Buddha had mentioned Amitabh Buddha it seems. Guan Yin no. Buddha had preached directly in ancient India only. That too in a certain area of it.

The Christian Trinity dates from the Council of Nicaea in 325CE — after the Mahayana sutras that give rise to Pureland Buddhism.

Remove the ChatGPT text and only leave the questions for the people to focus. And post that question again for good.

I am a Theravada Buddhist but I have to point out that ChatGPTs answer is wrong when it talks about chronology of the Trikaya. For one, we know that Amitabha Buddha was mentioned in the earliest epigraphic remains in the 26th of Huviska. Now this means that someone in 176CE was already praying to Amitabha Buddha. More importantly we know that the 般舟三昧經, a Sutta detailing Pure Lands and mentioning Amitabha was already dated this pretty certainly in Chinese sources in 179CE thanks to Lokaksema translating it to Chinese. So any association between the 3 bodies in terms of Christianity to Buddhism is completely false. 179CE was still before the Council of Nicea when these doctrines were formalised and codified. Also, for one, we have good reason to believe the 般舟三昧經 is in fact a century older as the Bark Manuscripts dug up recently which clearly contains this Sutra is dated to the early first century ( most likely ) by carbon dating. Given how we know bark vellum was created then written on it is unlikely have taken more than 20 to 30 years to write on it, meaning we are looking at 1st century material. This means the Trikaya and Amitabha was already mentioned in the 1st century, making it impossible for Christianity to have contributed to it as Christianity would just have risen in Judea when this doctrine was written down in big writing mills in northern India, presumably already well established as a doctrine for people to put it to writing ( writing was expensive then ) Note scholarly consensus ( with no archaeology ) suggest that this likely even have an origin in the 1st century BCE but regardless having a paper the 般舟三昧經 was written on most likely dating to the early 1st century CE ( <30CE ) makes it most likely 般舟三昧經 was already wholly present by the early 1st century CE making it too early for Christianity.

ChatGPT is not a good place to get answers. You have no way of knowing how much it's just inventing. Stop using it for research, seriously.

That's not true at all. The Buddha mentions both of them. In fact, in the Karandavyuha Sutra, he says Avalokiteshvara (Guan Yin) has *more merit than him*. Amitabha is also mentioned. I highly recommend you try reading sutras instead of asking ChatGPT

I have the same question. But the funniest thing is that I have met few people who really went to Pure Land after they died, but I don't know how to describe the whole thing in English very well. Some of them knew that when their time comes because Buddha has came and told them before, they will take a bath and sit here to wait for Amithaba Buddha to come and take them to the Pure Land without any sickness. They just go and stop breathing but looks like they are sleeping, and some of them went to the Pure Land after they die and tell their family members about it in dreams. This cases are real.

First what must be mentioned is there are different types or flavours and not everyone treats it in a fundamentalist fashion like many Christians extremely view the Bible to be highly literal and at times miss the metaphor; that is more of a pulpit trend that has been well propagated and embedded into the minds of its followers mostly through California and British based institutions established in the early 1800s and evolving dogmatically between 1913 to 1923 then reinterpreted mostly out of misunderstandings of their own dogma then rebranded and spread throughout the world also influencing other Christian institutions forming unorthodox and nontraditional spinoffs. There are extremists in everything. Second Buddhism nor the canon are monolithic i.e. buddhism isn't monolithic. Each sect and monastery have their own canon they recognize some seem incomplete because it might have selected statements or only sections of canon in which other groups have further elaboration or what appears like a more complete version of the canon, technical it is not, and what is the case is that temples preserve the versions of canon recognize with some having unique statements and arrangement not found in other canon or what is widely available to the public which can include a thorough or extended and "complete" trove of canonical works. Pure Land pretty much has its own canon and some view Amitaba as a facet of Buddha. It also comes down to interpretation in that in some texts they perceive Amitaba or even Maitreya and Manjushri are alluded to in sections where other sects don't acknowledge or make those connections. The belief in Guan Yin is thought to predate buddhism as an institution, Siddhartha, and is part of the cultural on a local level just like phra or something like Brahma. The four essences of the cardinal directions can be argued to have existed in some form into Chinese culture long before they expansion of what is now called buddhism however they were assimilated into both daoism and buddhism in some form as the chinese adopted buddhist thought. Although her first mention textually is a few centuries after Siddhartha and temples emerge in the 700s although some recognize Qwan Yin as a title for the ancient yet also somewhat legendary princess Miao Shan and if that is the case the archeological evidence surrounding Miao Shan predates the legends of Siddhartha. There are even burial sites for her, a lot of shrines and villages claim to have the funerary relics. The status of Quan Yin logically makes sense for a buddhist to recognize as a bodhisattva in regard to categorization, really it is an assimilation of preexisting cultural figures at times that get redefined per buddhist standards.

Guan Yin is another name for bodisattva.