Talk:Pure Land Buddhism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It is completely erroneous to reference Sokka Gakai Buddhism as evidence that "Pure Land Buddhism has spread to the west". Sokka Gakai is Nichiren Buddhism, which is neither related, nor a sub-sect of Pure Land Buddhism. It is like demonstrating the spread of Christianity by referencing Muslims. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 21:03, 3 August 2014‎

I agree wih the above comment - it is a gross over-simplification to link the two in this way. Also, the description of Pure Land Buddhism itself is wholly inadequate. I propose to edit this page quite severely. Hundovir (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

/r/buddhism[edit] not so happy Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Pure Land Buddhism is not a "monotheistic" religion[edit]

Amida Buddha is a transcendent Buddha, not a theistic god. There is no creator or judge in Buddhism, so Amida is not a theistic god. Pure Land Buddhism is the largest sect of Buddhism in East Asia, so it deserves to be portrayed more accurately in this article.

Furthermore, Pure Land Buddhists recite the name of Amida Buddha for their future rebirth into the Pure Land, in order to attain Buddhahood upon being reborn there. The goal of Pure Land Buddhism, then, is the same as all other Mahayana Buddhist sects, to attain Buddhahood for the sake of leading all other beings to Buddhahood.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
[Citation needed] Christopher (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This entire article is a misrepresentation of what Pure Land Buddhism teaches, that doesn't even cite any sources. Again, Soka Gokkai isn't even Pure Land Buddhist! That's like saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Catholic. It's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent the teachings of a religion, even if you disagree with them. (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we don't cite any sources and our article is currently rubbish. Blanking the page is not going to help the situation though. Christopher (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Pure Land Buddhism has often been incorrectly described as a theistic version of Buddhism, with Amida Buddha in the role of a god leading us to “salvation” expressed as birth in the Pure Land. Shinran’s understanding, however, was that Amida Buddha was not a mythical Buddha who promised salvation to anyone who repeated his name, but rather, a symbol for the Dharma itself. / (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)