Self Power - Other Power - Grace

[Tariki]

In my own Pure Land faith, we use the terms "self power" and "other power". It is said that in the way of the sages one developes wisdom and gains enlightenment.....................in the way of Pure Land, one returns to the foolish self to be saved by Amida.

"Returning to the foolish self" is deemed to be the easy path, yet...................."few their be who take it"! (And this for a multitude of reasons!)

One way of defining "self power" is the use of the word "calculation ("hakarai" in Japanese) The meaning of "hakarai" is to deliberate, analyse, and determine a course of action. It further means to arrange or manage, to work out a problem, to bring a plan to conclusion.............to all acts of intellect and will aimed at achieving liberation...............In full Pure Land usage, it means any effort made by the devotee to make themselves worthy of Amida's compassion in their own eyes and their clinging to their judgements and designs, predicated on their own goodness, for attaining awakening.

"Reality-as-is" expresses itself as the will that all come to enlightenment, and this will be "made to become so" of itself, beyond the calculation/hakarai of ourselves.

Yet the paradox is that, any attempt to rid ourselves of "hakarai/calculation" is itself calculation..........and all such effort is futile and self defeating!

In part, this is the reason for this thread...........to hear the views of others, from other traditions. To hear their understanding of "grace" and how "grace" comes to be the ground of their lives and not just a word that actually hides self-justification or whatever. Just what does any one consider their own contribution to be?

"If we wish to be sure of the road we tread on, we must close our eyes and walk in the dark" (St John of the Cross)

Thanks

 

[Tariki]

Just a few ramblings to try to stimulate some interest..............

One factor that would seem to influence our understanding of "grace" - and of the path we follow - is just "who" is it that will experience enlightenment/salvation. Someone has said that the "zen" experience is unattainable by the isolated, separate, illusory ego, whatever expansion of consciousness it may achieve as an isolated ego. It seems to me that many "techniques" are pursued as some sort of attempt to "expand the consciousness of the isolated ego"................an attempt to "gain", to "achieve" to "become", to "attain".

Yet In "eastern" terms, in regaining our "original face" we cannot acquire "emptiness" or become "empty"..............we are just "empty from the beginning". Any "technique" can only be to strip away, to reveal that which already is (or isnt!!!)...............not to build upon anything or to accumulate, or to "grow".

This is how I begin to understand "grace" within eastern terms...........that it is a given, and in a very real sense can never be "earned". The word "earned" seems to relate more to the empirical ego that wishes to take all the plaudits!

I should explain that this is not all academic to me - I am not asking questions for questions sake. For various reasons I ceased meditation in any formal manner a few years ago - after about twelve years of simple breathing meditation. My only "practice" now is the saying of the Nembutsu, which in Pure Land terms is a "non-practice".............Namu-Amida-Butsu - said to express gratitude for an enlightenment already given as gift ( albeit not yet "realised")

It does seem from my experience that formal meditation bolsters the ego, gives it a sense of "achievement", and sometimes even makes it look upon others who do not do so as "second class citizens"! Perhaps I did not persevere enough?

There are "changes" now that I recognise, yet I recognise them essentially as changes to the self conscious ego. They are changes for the better, yet I have no real wish to cling to them as any sign of "progress"...........when one is "empty from the beginning" how can one "progress"?!! The word - and meaning of "grace" - have become an issue, coming as I do from a Christian background and from a great love and some knowledge of the Christian mystics of the "way of unknowing" Like Eckhart and St John of the Cross.

Sorry to be so obscure, but I have no congregation or sangha to turn to. Forums like this one are the only thing that can offer anything. Personally I know of no one who shares any interest in these things.

Thanks for you time

 

[lunamoth]

This is how I begin to understand "grace" within eastern terms...........that it is a given, and in a very real sense can never be "earned". The word "earned" seems to relate more to the empirical ego that wishes to take all the plaudits!

Hi Tariki,

I would agree with your understainding of grace. Grace is free, raining down all the time. One does not earn it by either good works nor by having right beliefs. However, the only way I can wrap my little brain around this is to have the caveat that even though we stand continuously in the rain of His grace, our will is needed for recognition of the rain. So, you can stand there getting wet and just ignore it, you can recognize it and delight in it, and you can even channel it as loving-kindess into the world. And, from a Christian perspective, even this recognition of the rain comes from the Spirit prompting our will.

Thus, every time we meditate, contemplate, or pray, even if it is just one word or a wordless exclamation, we can recognize that it is not us that decided to pray but the Spirit in which we live and move and have our being. How marvelous!

But, I think I understand what you mean about the "self-way," and this being the hard way, because it is the way through ego, or what we used to call pride. Every discipline and especially the ascetic practices leave the door open for spiritual pride to enter, which then must also be somehow overcome. The paradox! I think this is where having a community and or a spiritual director/confessor comes in helpful. Call it a reality check, or a humility check. I think I've read that Buddhist monks get their lessons in humility from their abbot (not sure if that is what they are called).

I'm not certain that giving up one's practice is always the correct move because it is easy for the enemy, or sloth, and then again intellectual pride for to creep in. In fact it feels like I am indulging in intellectual pride right now even talking about it as if I understand. Oh, and there was some false humility!

But perhaps the real culprit here is what my mom referred to as 'dwelling,' or navel gazing. The middle path is narrow! How to live a contemplative life yet not fall into navel-gazing? I don't know! Again, maybe this is where we need a reality check in the context of a community. Another place I consider 'safe' is 'the attitude of gratitude.'

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Quahom1]

Just a few ramblings to try to stimulate some interest..............

One factor that would seem to influence our understanding of "grace" - and of the path we follow - is just "who" is it that will experience enlightenment/salvation. Someone has said that the "zen" experience is unattainable by the isolated, separate, illusory ego, whatever expansion of consciousness it may achieve as an isolated ego. It seems to me that many "techniques" are pursued as some sort of attempt to "expand the consciousness of the isolated ego"................an attempt to "gain", to "achieve" to "become", to "attain".

Yet In "eastern" terms, in regaining our "original face" we cannot acquire "emptiness" or become "empty"..............we are just "empty from the beginning". Any "technique" can only be to strip away, to reveal that which already is (or isnt!!!)...............not to build upon anything or to accumulate, or to "grow".

This is how I begin to understand "grace" within eastern terms...........that it is a given, and in a very real sense can never be "earned". The word "earned" seems to relate more to the empirical ego that wishes to take all the plaudits!

I should explain that this is not all academic to me - I am not asking questions for questions sake. For various reasons I ceased meditation in any formal manner a few years ago - after about twelve years of simple breathing meditation. My only "practice" now is the saying of the Nembutsu, which in Pure Land terms is a "non-practice".............Namu-Amida-Butsu - said to express gratitude for an enlightenment already given as gift ( albeit not yet "realised")

It does seem from my experience that formal meditation bolsters the ego, gives it a sense of "achievement", and sometimes even makes it look upon others who do not do so as "second class citizens"! Perhaps I did not persevere enough?

There are "changes" now that I recognise, yet I recognise them essentially as changes to the self conscious ego. They are changes for the better, yet I have no real wish to cling to them as any sign of "progress"...........when one is "empty from the beginning" how can one "progress"?!! The word - and meaning of "grace" - have become an issue, coming as I do from a Christian background and from a great love and some knowledge of the Christian mystics of the "way of unknowing" Like Eckhart and St John of the Cross.

Sorry to be so obscure, but I have no congregation or sangha to turn to. Forums like this one are the only thing that can offer anything. Personally I know of no one who shares any interest in these things.

Thanks for you time

In my opinion, Self Power, is powerful indeed, but limited. That is to say it is relatively short lived. Other power is not so powerful as self power, however it can be sustaining during our weakened state, and has the potential to be longer lived (as long as others wish to contribute to it/us, thus giving of their own reserves of power). Grace, that is universal power, unlimited in its resouces and reserve. But often times in order for Grace to work, we must forgoe our Self Power, and other power. Why? The frequencies of self power and other power can conflict with, negate or mute the Power of Grace.

Without getting into particular faiths, I would state that self and other power ebb and flow, or wax and wane, depending upon the individual (s). Grace, on the other hand is constant and universal. It is potential, until we choose to tap into it...then it becomes a kinetic dynamo in our lives. Grace finds paths we never could, or if we did, could never clear in order to go through.

Without offering offense, I'll state what I was taught and believe, and act on:

"There but for the Grace of "God", go I...here I go.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[Thomas]

I have an essay by the late Marco Pallis entitled: "Is there Room for Grace in Buddhism?" published in the book "Sword of the Spirit" - I can try and precis that if you like.

Pallis was one of the recognised authorities of the Sophia Perennis (the foremost spokespersons of comparitive religion in my view) and a Tibetan Buddhist. Curiously it is to him that I owe my 'epiphany' with regard to Catholicism, but that's another story!

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...e+in+buddhism+pallis&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=9

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew033395.htm

These are two links to Pallis, and the ridiculously long one is a document that brings up just this point (p7) - the Amida Buddha is 'the Buddha of Grace' (?), and in Japan, we have Kwannon (Mercy?) - sorry, not at home and writing from memory.

I'll post again later.

Thomas

 

[Tariki]

Thanks so much for the responses. I would like to say once again that these questions are not academic for me..............the comparisons between different faiths is no game! When young I seemed to enjoy a natural trust and faith in "reality", the sense of living in a cosmos rather than a chaos. After a meeting with, and involvement with, some very robust fundamentalist Christians with talk of damnation and hell.............well, I think they put "the fear of God" in me. Perhaps even since I have sought to throw off the shackles of their threats and warnings and regain the natural trust and faith that seemed a birthright. In Pure Land Buddhism I seem to have found my home.

Quahom1, from my own perspective I am unable to understand your words....."Other power is not so powerful as self power". From the "non-dual" context of Buddhism, "Other Power" embraces both "self" and "other" power.....................

"O Saichi, will you tell us of Other Power?
Yes, but there is neither self power nor other power.
What is, is the graceful acceptance only" (From the Journals of the Pure Land "saint" Saichi)

But I must give your words a deeper reading, perhaps in part this is what they point towards?

Lunamoth spoke of the "attitude of gratitude" and gratitude is a large part of the Pure Land path. I can certainly relate to the little verse found in the Cistercian tradition...............

"Ingratitude is a burning wind
that dries up the source of love,
the dew of mercy,
the streams of grace."

Looking for correspondences and hints, I find much in the writings of Thomas Merton. There is a fine passage in a letter of his to the Buddhist scholar D T Suzuki relating the "zen" experience to grace that I might dig out and quote. But he also speaks of the "catholic" attitude and understanding in his book "Zen and the birds of Appetite"......

"The innocence and purity of heart which belong to paradise are a complete emptiness of self in which all is the work of God, the free and unpredictable expression of His love, the work of grace. In the purity of original innocence, all is done in us but without us. But before we reach that level, we must also learn to work on the other level of 'knowledge', where grace works in us but 'not without us' "

Thomas mentioned Marco Pallis, and I seem to remember a few words of his quoted im Thomas Merton's Journals concerning Buddhism and grace. Once again, I'll try to dig them out.

Anyway, I must go now. Thanks once again for the responses. I will give them a deeper read and perhaps say more.

 

[Tariki]

I have an essay by the late Marco Pallis entitled: "Is there Room for Grace in Buddhism?" published in the book "Sword of the Spirit" - I can try and precis that if you like.



Thomas

Thomas,

I would be very grateful if you could do this.
Thank you
Derek

 

[Thomas]

Hi Derek -

In answering this question, allow me (moderators) to post a couple of paragraphs from the review of Pallis' book "A Buddhist Spectrum" reviewed by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, himself a foremost living spokesman of the Sophia Perennis as a philosophical movement, that can only be fully operative from within a given tradition (which, in Nasr's case, is Sufic Islam):

In the chapter "Is There Room for 'Grace' in Buddhism?" Pallis turns to a subject which might appear as strange to those who identify Buddhism with a kind of rationalistic philosophy and take refuge in it from not only Christian theism, which they no longer understand, but the very notion of grace, which they identify with religious sentimentality and which they seek to avoid at all cost. Pallis demonstrates, however, the centrality of grace in Buddhism despite its non-personalist and non-theist perspective. He relates grace to enlightenment and shows how the attractive influence of enlightenment strikes the consciousness of human beings who stand on the axis of Buddha-hood as at once invitation to enlightenment, companionship of enlightenment, and reminders of enlightenment. In connection with the latter, he discusses the incredible spiritual presence of the sacred image of the Buddha and the role of traditional Buddhist art, especially in its iconic form, in transmitting a sacred presence which cannot be called anything but grace. (Emphasis mine - Thomas)

from http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/book/032-BuddhistSpectrum.htm

Which I can only commend in its entirety.

If you have any particular questions relating to this, I can attempt an answer from within the chapter I have.

Thomas

 

[Tariki]

Thanks Thomas, I appreciate this.



Will post again when I have more time.........

 

[Tariki]

I was just reading through the previous posts again, picking up a few comments and points being made. About the middle path being narrow and of how to live a contemplative life without falling into navel gazing. Perhaps Thomas Merton demonstrated the possibilities! As far as the "middle path" is concerned, in Buddhism this is not so much "narrow"...............not so much a middle position between two extremes, rather a 'no-position' that supercedes both (Murti). Anyway, I did like the reference to our recognising 'the rain of grace' as itself being the work of the 'spirit'. There are some beautiful 'hymns' written by Shinran (founding father of Jodo Shin Shu, a Pure Land tradition) where he weaves the various strands of "self" and "other power" in terms of Primal will, 'our' own will to enlightenment, 'our' manifestation of true faith.........ending with the words 'the will to enlightenment IS itself Other Power'. Jodo Shin Shu is perhaps the most radical of all Pure Land paths in terms of complete reliance on "Other Power", perhaps the Calvinism of Buddhism! (Accept that in Jodo Shin Shu, EVERYONE is elected...........eventually!)

I think it is important to begin with the idea/faith/trust that enlightenment (salvation) has been given as gift and cannot be earned. In my experience this changes the whole orientation of our practice, and our understanding of it. Living as an act of gratitude, rather than as an attempt to "gain" or "achieve"; and seeking more to provide a vehicle to express enlightenment than to seek enlightenment itself.

I often ponder the meaning of John Donne's words.............."Grace, if thou repent, thou cans't not lack. Yet who shall give ye that grace to begin?" The initiative is with "mercy" itself, not with our own choice..............in retrospect we can look back and see that what we understood at the time as 'self power' was in fact the working of 'Other power'

I did look up the reference in Thomas Merton's Journals to Marco Pallis and grace. The reference comes where Merton is speaking of the 'touching the earth' mudra (hand position) of the Buddha. One hand points downwards to touch the earth, the other supports a begging bowl - symbolizing acceptance of the gift - grace. Pallis is quoted as saying......"In the two gestures displayed by the Buddha-image the whole programme of man's spiritual exigencies is summed up". Merton then states........"An ACTIVE attitude toward the world and a PASSIVE attitude toward heaven." Merton then quotes Pallis further.........The function of grace.....to condition man's homecoming to the centre itself......which provides the incentive to start on the Way and the enrrgy to face and overcome its many and various obstacles........Likewise grace is the welcoming hand into the centre....."

D T Suzuki, when speaking of grace in Pure Land Buddhism, speaks of "synogism" and "monogism".............the first, the example of the monkey who carries its young on its back - we need to play our part and cling on! And the second, the example of the cat, who carries its young around by the mouth - the kitten plays no part at all!

Which would be the most accurate analogy?

I did like the words of Quahom1, about the ebb and flow of self and other power, the waxing and waning. That certainly seems the actual experience.............whatever the belief about total reliance, it does seem at times that effort is required, not to mention discipline! Yet I suppose, as said above, even here we can still look back and realise that at heart it was "Other power".............

Once again, I will try to dig out the words by Merton on the similarities between the "zen" experience and the Christian concept of grace - this given in a letter to Suzuki.

Thanks

 

[Tariki]

I still intend to dig out the words by Thomas Merton on the similarities between the "zen experience" and grace. Just for now, here is a little passage from Monastic Studies Issue 7 (1969) written by Merton.....

"In prayer we discover what we already have. You start where you are, you deepen what you already have, and you realize that you are already there. We already have everything, but we don't know it and we don't experience it. Everything has been given to us in Christ. All we need is to experience what we already possess. The whole thing boils down to giving ourselves in prayer a chance to realize that we have what we seek. We don't have to rush after it. It is there all the time, and if we give it time, it will make itself known to us."

I think these words are relevant to anyone, whatever path they follow. As Merton said elsewhere, "what we have to be is what we are".

 

[Tariki]

Just remembered to dig out the passage from Thomas Merton's letters concerning "grace" and "zen"....................here it is for anyone interested.....


"To my mind, the Christian doctrine of grace seems to fulfill a most important function in all this. The realization, the finding of ourselves in Christ and hence in paradise, has a special character from the fact that this is all a free gift from God. With us, this stress on freedom, God's freedom, the indeterminateness of salvation, is the thing that corresponds to Zen in Christianity. The breakthrough that comes with the realization of what the finger of a koan is pointing to is like the breakthrough of the realization that a sacrament, for instance, is a finger pointing to the completely spontaneous Gift of Himself to us on the part of God - beyond and above images, outside of every idea, every law, every right or wrong, everything high or low, everything spiritual or material. Whether we are good or bad, wise or foolish, there is always this sudden irruption, this breakthrough of God's freedom into our life, turning the whole thing upside down so that it comes out, contrary to all expectation, right side up. This is grace, this is salvation, this is Christianity. And, so far as I can see, it is also very much like Zen"

(From a letter to D T Suzuki written in 1959)

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Hi Tariki. Wonderful thoughts.

Living as an act of gratitude, rather than as an attempt to "gain" or "achieve"; and seeking more to provide a vehicle to express enlightenment than to seek enlightenment itself.

What popped into my mind as I read your words above were the words of Soren Kierkegaard - "Let God be God in you." Those words have almost become a mantra for me of late.

"In the two gestures displayed by the Buddha-image the whole programme of man's spiritual exigencies is summed up". Merton then states........"An ACTIVE attitude toward the world and a PASSIVE attitude toward heaven."

I had an experience lately, that I'm a bit loathe to go into here, where the attitude of receptivity was intimated or hinted at, as something to work (but not work) on. You know what I mean, I think.

D T Suzuki, when speaking of grace in Pure Land Buddhism, speaks of "synogism" and "monogism".............the first, the example of the monkey who carries its young on its back - we need to play our part and cling on! And the second, the example of the cat, who carries its young around by the mouth - the kitten plays no part at all!

I've spent the last few years clinging, searching, trying, etc ... I can say that it has brought me some insight, but also much anxiety. I'm at the point in my spiritual journey where I'm ready to be carried, to trust who is carrying me, to enjoy the ride and to realize that it's all ok.

 

[earl]

Hi Tariki. Wonderful thoughts.


What popped into my mind as I read your words above were the words of Soren Kierkegaard - "Let God be God in you." Those words have almost become a mantra for me of late.


I had an experience lately, that I'm a bit loathe to go into here, where the attitude of receptivity was intimated or hinted at, as something to work (but not work) on. You know what I mean, I think.


I've spent the last few years clinging, searching, trying, etc ... I can say that it has brought me some insight, but also much anxiety. I'm at the point in my spiritual journey where I'm ready to be carried, to trust who is carrying me, to enjoy the ride and to realize that it's all ok.

Hi aletheiarivers. Nice to see ya here (knew you from another forum ) Actually the quote you gave attributed to Kierkegaard probably originated by my favorite Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart-favorite as his writings seem so zen-like (Tariki the ecumenist might appreciate that ) The full quote captures that flavor:
"All the God asks you most pressingly is to go out of yourself and let God be God in you." Have a good one, Earl

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Hi aletheiarivers. Nice to see ya here (knew you from another forum ) Actually the quote you gave attributed to Kierkegaard probably originated by my favorite Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart-favorite as his writings seem so zen-like (Tariki the ecumenist might appreciate that ) The full quote captures that flavor: "All the God asks you most pressingly is to go out of yourself and let God be God in you." Have a good one, Earl

Hi earl. I remember you from TCPC and the now defunct Christian Mystics forum. Good to talk to you again.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that Kierkegaard was quoting Eckhart. I think Merton said something similar as well - about letting the light of God shine through, about becoming transparent.

 

[Tariki]

To AletheiaRivers...and Earl,

Thanks for your posts, which I have just noticed. I read back through my own posts to familiarise myself with the theme of the thread and as always when I do this sort of thing, have a strange sense of "did I write that?", not in the sense of disagreement, but a disconcerting sense of unfamiliarity I find difficult to understand. I won't delve too deeply into this..............

Anyway, Eckhart has been mentioned and in a context of "letting God be God in you". You may both be familiar with his words given in his sermon on the Biblical beatitude "Blessed are the poor in spirit" where he speaks of the "true" poverty, but whether familiar or not they are perhaps worth repeating and dwelling upon again..............

"Now listen carefully! I have often said that we should be so free of all things and all works, both innner and outer, that we become the place where God can act. But now we put it differently. If it is the case that someone is free of all creatures, of God and of themselves, if God finds a place to act in them, then we say: as long as this exists in someone, they have not yet reached the ultimate poverty. For God does not intend there to be a place in someone where he can act, but if there is to be true poverty of spirit, someone must be so free of God and all his works that if God wishes to act in the soul he must himself be the place in which he can act, and this he is certainly willing to be. For if God finds us THIS poor, then God performs his own active work and we passively receive God in ourselves and God becomes the place of his work in us since God works within himself. In this poverty, we attain again the eternal being which we once enjoyed, which is ours now and shall be for ever."

I have just finished reading a Shin (Pure Land) Buddhist classic called "Naturalness", which weaves in part around the Shin idea of "no calculation" where "no working is true working". The same themes found in the words of Eckhart were being played out, yet in words strikingly dissimiliar. For one such as myself, often floundering arround with a mind seemingly far from the realization of enlightenment, I find such parrallels encouraging.............and a rich source of trust and faith..........which perhaps I seek above all else.

Thanks anyway for your interest!

 

[Eudaimonist]

In my own Pure Land faith, we use the terms "self power" and "other power".

Hi, my philosophical path is roughly what you might call a "self-power" path. I disagree that "calculation" (rational activity) is useless in life -- it is our supreme tool for survival and flourishing! Eudaimonia -- a flourishing life -- is at root a rational life, no matter what one might add on to that.

But, then, my path is aimed at self-actualization, not enlightenment. Our differing goals may lead to different appreciation for means.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Tariki]

Hi, my philosophical path is roughly what you might call a "self-power" path. I disagree that "calculation" (rational activity) is useless in life -- it is our supreme tool for survival and flourishing! Eudaimonia -- a flourishing life -- is at root a rational life, no matter what one might add on to that.

But, then, my path is aimed at self-actualization, not enlightenment. Our differing goals may lead to different appreciation for means.


eudaimonia,

M.

Eudaimonia,

Yes, as you say, our "aim" and our differing goals would effect whatever "means" we might pursue. There is in fact a long tradition of "self-cultivation" within the Pure Land path of Buddhism, yet the main purpose -as in all Buddhist paths - is "enlightenment", "liberation", the "ending of suffering".......or "the complete and unshakeable deliverance of mind" as the Majjhima NIkaya would have it.

"Calculation" (or "hakarai" in Japanese) is virtually a technical term when used in Pure Land thought - the noun form of a verb meaning to deliberate and determine a course of action. As a synonym for self-power, it refers to all acts of intellect and will aimed at achieving liberation, specifically the practicer's efforts to make themselves "worthy" in their own eyes..............Great compassion illumines everyone at all times, but any contrivance to attain enlightenment by cultivating one's own virtues or capabilities - whether through moral action or religious practice - will blind one to it, making sincere trust impossible.

I would also say that, as with all Buddhist thought, ultimately there is the non-dual perspective..................Self-power IS other-power, other-power IS self power. This is the paradox, that even attempts at "non-calculation" is in effect calculation!

"O! Saichi, will you tell us of Other Power?
Yes, but there is neither Other Power nor self power.
What is, is the graceful acceptance only."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eudaimonia,

Hm, I've noticed at this and other boards that people don't understand that my signoff, "eudaimonia", isn't my name, but a kind of well-wishing, something like signing off with "namaste" or "metta". I will use my full first name to make this clearer from now on.

Yes, as you say, our "aim" and our differing goals would effect whatever "means" we might pursue. There is in fact a long tradition of "self-cultivation" within the Pure Land path of Buddhism, yet the main purpose -as in all Buddhist paths - is "enlightenment", "liberation", the "ending of suffering".......or "the complete and unshakeable deliverance of mind" as the Majjhima NIkaya would have it.

Then we are speaking at cross-purposes. Thank you for clarifying the context of the discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tariki]

Hm, I've noticed at this and other boards that people don't understand that my signoff, "eudaimonia", isn't my name, but a kind of well-wishing, something like signing off with "namaste" or "metta". I will use my full first name to make this clearer from now on.



Then we are speaking at cross-purposes. Thank you for clarifying the context of the discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark,

Sorry about the name, my mistake. And a belated thank-you for the good wishes!

Best wishes to you.

Tariki (Derek)


P.S. I would also add that, simply put, there are two basic trends within Buddhism towards "enlightenment"................The enlightenment of "oneself" and the attainment of nirvana (Theravada) - the Arahat....................and the enlightenment of "oneself" which ineviteable involves the "salvation" of all, where nirvana = samsara (Mahayana) - the Bodhisattva. The Pure Land tradition belongs to the latter.