r/PureLand

Greetings to everyone, and thank you sincerely to anyone willing to read this post!

I (15M) am a teen, from western europe, (studying classical piano performance in a conservatory) deeply interested in the dhamma.

Over the last months, i began exploring buddhism. Initially this happened indirectly through interest in meditation, psychology, altered states of consciousness, and philosophical questions regarding selfhood and suffering. I have only read two books (i have though read multiple articles and texts) on this matter: "the practice of not thinking", by former monk ryunosuke koike; and later "what the buddha taught", work of walpola sri rahula.

I genuinely desire to follow the path, orient my life sincerely toward it. However, my greatest obstacle is confusion. Not disagreement exactly, but difficulty assembling the teachings into one coherent and comprehensive understanding. Every text clarifies some things while complicating others. I feel as though i possess fragments without yet grasping the structure of the whole.

For this reason, i would be extremely grateful for thoughtful responses to any of the following questions. I do not expect anyone to answer all of them. Even clarification on a single point may help significantly.

I ask especially for answers that are careful, analytical, informed, and intellectually honest. I simply mean that i am trying sincerely to understand, and brief answers such as "just go meditate" or "just practice" unfortunately do not resolve the confusion themselves.

At present, my principal objective is not merely intellectual curiosity, but attaining a coherent and comprehensive understanding of buddhism overall, such that the teachings become intelligible together rather than as isolated concepts.

Because of that, i would especially appreciate answers to the first section below, since it is the most urgent and central issue for me right now. The remaining questions follow from it.

I am currently writing a philosophy essay whose central thesis can be stated as follows:

The traditional problem of free will arises from reifying the self as a substantial and independent source of action. What we call the ‘self’ is better understood as a dependently arisen continuity of causally conditioned and interrelated processes without inherent or permanent identity. Because of this, libertarian free will is rejected not only causally but ontologically: the idea of an absolutely self-originating agent is incoherent. Nevertheless, practical agency and moral responsibility remain possible through stable patterns of causal continuity, functional authorship and relational intelligibility. Morality is therefore reconstructed not around metaphysical freedom or divine command, but around the reduction of suffering and harmful conditions within interdependent systems.

However, although this initially seemed coherent to me, i now realize that my understanding may still be incomplete or confused.

The main problem is this:

If there is no self, what exactly is the relationship between the aggregates, consciousness, mind, continuity through time, rebirth, moral responsibility, and subjective experience itself?

I understand abstractly that the self is not a fixed entity, but i still do not clearly understand what an individual actually is conventionally.

What exactly unifies experience into the appearance of being 'someone'?

Why are there apparently separate streams of experience?

If there is no enduring self, what exactly acts, intends, chooses, suffers, or is reborn?

Likewise, i suspect my essay may still unconsciously preserve some subtle notion of self through terms such as 'functional authorship', 'organizational continuity', or 'agent'. I do not yet know whether these are legitimate conventional designations compatible with buddhism, or whether they still conceal attachment to identity in another form.

In other words:
How should one correctly think about agency without self?
How should one understand responsibility without an ultimate subject?
How should one understand continuity without identity?

Related to this, i would greatly appreciate rigorous explanations of the five aggregates, dependent origination, the buddhist understanding of mind, and the distinction between mind, consciousness, and awareness.

At present, i think my lack of understanding of these doctrines is the principal thing preventing both my essay and my understanding of buddhism overall from becoming coherent.

The second most urgent issue for me concerns musical performance and anxiety.

Music is one of the most important things in my life (as i am an aspiring pianist), but performance is often accompanied by severe anxiety, self-consciousness, obsessive self-monitoring, fear of failure, and attachment to judgment and results.

This destroys clarity and sometimes even the joy of music itself.

How should one work with this kind of anxiety?

How should one approach practice itself?

What attitude should one cultivate toward performance, judgment, mistakes, ambition, and refinement?

One of my biggest difficulties is that buddhism often appears fragmented depending on the source.

Sometimes it is presented almost psychologically, other times metaphysically, philosophically, religiously, ritually, or devotionally.

So:
What exactly is buddhism fundamentally?
What is essential and central?
What is secondary, symbolic, cultural, or sectarian?
How should a beginner construct a clear and ordered understanding of the whole?

Likewise:
How should one choose a tradition or school?
Are there serious and reliable buddhist teachers or communities in portugal that may eventually be worth seeking out in the future (i will, i believe, only be able to get a teacher in 3-4 years)?

I began meditation some months ago, but eventually started experiencing increasing internal stress and suppression, almost as though i was trying forcibly to silence thought.

So:
How should meditation properly begin for someone psychologically obsessive or excessively analytical?
What is meditation actually cultivating?
What should one generally direct the mind toward throughout ordinary life?

More broadly:
What exactly is dukkha?
What constitutes the absence of dukkha?
How should one relate emotionally to life itself without falling either into pessimism or naive optimism?

I also still struggle with several practical ethical questions.

For example:
What exactly is the basis of the precept against killing?
Why are animals generally included but plants excluded?
How should one respond to genuinely dangerous or violent people?
Is lying always wrong even when it prevents suffering?
How should one understand 'right speech' realistically rather than abstractly?

Likewise:
How should one deal with compulsivity?
How should one respond wisely to severely depressed people who threaten suicide if abandoned?
How should one deal compassionately with suffering within one’s own family?
How should one act regarding situations such as insect infestations at home?

Finally, i still remain confused regarding several metaphysical and cosmological issues.

Such are:
What exactly is rebirth if there is no enduring self?
What, if anything, continues?
How should one understand traditional buddhist cosmology today?
How should teachings concerning mount meru, realms, heavens, hells, and non-human beings be interpreted?
Can emptiness meaningfully apply to atoms and particles, or is that a misunderstanding of śūnyatā?

Lastly, i would greatly appreciate comments regarding the following books, in order, and whether they form a coherent path of study for someone in my position:

"What the buddha taught", walpola sri rahula.
"The heart of the buddha’s teaching", thich nhat hanh.
"The miracle of mindfulness", thich nhat hanh.
"Why buddhism is true", robert wright.
"The dhammapada", translated by eknath easwaran.
"Buddhism in practice" donald s. lopez.
"In the buddha’s words", bhikkhu bodhi.
"Buddhist philosophy: essential readings", william edelglass.
"How to see yourself as you really are", the dalai lama.

I apologize sincerely for the immense length of this post. My intention is not merely to ask disconnected questions, but to seek a coherent understanding of buddhism as a whole. Metta

My dad is getting ready to carve a white marble Bodhisattva head in the style of the early Northern and Southern Dynasties. I am documenting the whole journey to share with you all.

Stone carving is a subtractive art. There is no going back once you make a cut. Because of this, he always creates a 1:1 clay model first. This allows him to add and remove material freely while perfecting the lines and the 3D proportions.

I wanted to share this stage of the process with anyone who appreciates Buddhist art and sculpture. Watching a lifeless lump of clay slowly take on such a peaceful and divine presence is incredibly therapeutic and powerful.

（Translated excerpt of Venerable Master Hsuan Hua’ s lecture🙏. 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed）

——Discourse given on November 8, 1980 🙏

The Buddha's body is not formed from the accumulation of the five aggregates （as a contrast, our bodies are temporary combinations of the five aggregates）, nor does it come from the twelve sense bases or the eighteen realms.

Since the Buddha has no fixed form or body, why can us (sentient beings) see the Buddha's 32 marks and 80 physical characteristics?🙏

This is a Buddha’s manifestation to accommodate our discriminating minds. Because we as sentient beings have a mind that distinguishes between good and bad, the Buddha manifests various bodies to increase our Dharma joy and Dharma faith to awaken our Buddha nature within (Bodhicitta). This is a skillful and expedient means of Dharma door.　　　

Because we have discriminating minds, with notions of good and evil, beauty and ugliness, right and wrong, black and white, the Buddha manifests in various forms and shapes according to our minds, allowing us to see the Buddha's form.

As the saying goes, “There are a thousand moons (reflections of moon) in a thousand rivers which have water flowing by. Without clouds in the sky, it is vast and clear.”

The Buddha manifests according to the needs of sentient beings. When our minds are pure, just like clear water in a river, the Buddha appears within, like the reflection of the moon on the water's surface. Why haven't we seen the Buddha? It is because our selfish desires and ignorance are too heavy for wisdom to arise. Our minds are turbid, just like murky water, so even if the Buddha is present, the Buddha's body cannot appear, much like a missing reflection of the moon.

Ignorance is darkness, wisdom is light. With ignorance comes afflictions, with afflictions comes delusion, with delusion comes darkness, with darkness comes no light, without light comes no wisdom, and without wisdom we cannot see the Buddha—all these are interconnected.

To see the Buddha body, one must diligently cultivate precepts, concentration, and wisdom, extinguishing greed, anger, and delusion. Then the Buddha's body will naturally appear, manifesting to teach the Dharma to practitioners. 🙏

http://jxy.book853.com/show.aspx?id=2694&cid=160&page=21

為什麼沒有見到佛？

　　◎一九八Ｏ年十一月八日開示

　　佛這個身，不是由五蘊所積聚成的，也不是從十二處或十八界來的。佛既沒有一個形相，眾生為什麼能見到佛的三十二相、八十種好呢？這是隨順眾生的分別心而示現。因為眾生有分別好或不好的心，佛為了要使眾生發菩提心，所以示現種種不同的身，增加其歡喜心，增加其信仰心。這是善巧方便的法門。

因為眾生有分別心，有善惡，有美醜，有是非，有黑白種種的問題，所以佛隨順眾生的心，而示現種種身，令眾生見到佛的身，所謂「千江有水千江月，萬里無雲萬里天。」佛是隨類而化身，眾生心水淨，佛便現其中。我們為什麼沒有見到佛身？因為我們的私欲太重，無明太重，所以智慧不現前；心水混濁，有佛也不現。　

　　無明就是黑暗，智慧就是光明。有無明就有煩惱，有煩惱就愚癡，有愚癡就是黑暗，有黑暗就無光明，無光明就沒有智慧，沒有智慧就見不到佛，這都有連帶的關係。想要見佛身，必須勤修戒定慧，息滅貪瞋癡，這樣佛身自然現前，來為行者現身說法。

Namo Amituofo 🙏

Hi everyone, so I have a question on a subject I am a bit confused about and want to know more about.

So it is about the great world system in Buddhism, so a great world system is the teaching range of one Buddha it contains 1 billion unit worlds all with there own 4 continents and mount merus, now it is said it expands and contracts but recently I have been told by ai (this is why I am verifying) that actually it doesn't literally mean expansion or contraction all it means is worlds appear and then contraction just means they get destroyed and the great world system does not actually expand or contract physically you know like a balloon.

I am confused so does the great world system itself expand and contract? Or does it just means worlds appear and decay leaving empty space rather than the great world system shrinking.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to reply.

I am going to move to a place soon where the only nearby sangha will be a Buddhist Church of America. I am Buddhist but my teachers are part of Kagyu and Nyingma schools in Tibetan Buddhism and as such do not hold to Jodo Shinshu doctrine regarding exclusive nembutsu and other-power. Would it still be a good idea to attend and are these more reconcilable than I think or is it a better idea to just attend my current sangha online exclusively?

Wanted to ask if anyone knows of any story of someone who has taken rebirth from any Pure Land back in this world out of great compassion? There have been many who have taken rebirth in, for example, Sukhavati, but how many have returned here after reaching, for example, stream-entry, bodhisattvahood, or Buddhahood?

I have a question for all Pure Land Buddhists: do you have any stories of practitioners who have achieved rebirth in the Pure Land, either with your own eyes or by knowing someone personally who has witnessed this? Ever since I converted to Pure Land Buddhism, I have developed a hobby of collecting rebirth accounts, and I enjoy reading as many stories as I can find. I am interested in hearing your stories if you wish to share, as they could also inspire others to recite the name of Amitabha Buddha to be born in the Pure Land. Thank you. Namo Amida Butsu.

I wanted to share a quick insight with you all today. From the perspective of conventional teachings (the Dharma of signs/forms), the Buddha teaches us that the way to change our fate is to "flow with causes and conditions, do good deeds, and build positive connections with others."

The logic is simple: you plant good "seeds" (causes) to accumulate good "fruit" (results). However, this process can be slow. It really depends on the weight of the karma you’ve already built up. If you're lucky, you might see the benefits in this life, but it could also take several lifetimes to fully ripen.

But I feel like that’s still secondary. What truly benefits us long-term is when our roots of virtue and merit are "full" enough that we finally get the chance to hear the Ultimate Truth of the Dharma. If we can truly accept it, practice it, and escape the cycle of Samsara—that is the ultimate way to change your fate.

（Because English is not my native language, I used translation software to translate my words into English. Please correct me if there are any inappropriate words or phrases. :)）

What do you guys think?

This Dharma-Gate of buddha-name recitation does not discriminate between wise and ignorant, or high ranking and lowly, or rich and poor. It does not distinguish between male and female, or old and young, or monks and nuns and laypeople. It does not matter if you have practiced it for a long time or have just recently started. Everyone can recite the buddha-name.

The guidelines for reciting the buddha-name are not rigid. You can recite the buddha-name in a loud voice or a low voice, while doing ablutions or while making prostrations. You can recite the buddha-name while gathering in the mind, while meditating, while contemplating the concept of buddha, while counting beads. You can recite the buddha-name while walking, standing or sitting quietly or lying on your side. You can recite the buddha-name silently or aloud. You can recite the buddha-name a thousand times or ten thousand times. It is all the same mindfulness of buddha. The only thing that is essential is to have definite faith and to seek birth in the Pure Land.

If you can actually practice the recitation like this, then there is no need to seek elsewhere for an enlightened teacher. As the saying goes, 'Steering the boat is entirely up to the person who holds the tiller.' Those who arrive mount to the Land of Peaceful Nurturing Amitabha's Pure Land] together.'

-- Master Tsung-pen, "Pure Land, Pure Mind," p. 120-121

Is it true that hungry ghosts can attract themselves to Amitabha Reciters because they also wish to be liberated? When you chant the name of Amitabha Buddha, are they automatically born into the pure land because of your chanting? I was contemplating Amitabha's compassion while reciting, and the thought came to me about the suffering that other beings are going through, who also wish for liberation. At that moment, the feeling of being loved by Amitabha turned into compassion for beings who are suffering, The strange thing is, the thought of these spirits attracting to my recitation did not bring fear into my heart, but compassion, in hopes of being the reason a suffering being can be saved by Amitabha Buddha so they too can be happy and free from suffering,

Namo Amida Butsu

Let me know if there’s any distinctions between what Hegel was describing in Science of Logic, also some parts of absolute idealism. Also lmk if you think Hegel dialectic contemplations reflect any other philosophers you are thinking of, thanks!