[Buddha-l] Pure Land

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Gary Gach wrote:

GG> Seems to me as if resemblances between Pure Land and what's now known as
GG> Christianity may not be accidental, but rather due to Buddhists hearing
GG> about followers of Jesus during travels along the Silk Route.   Lineage of
GG> the new innovative Mahayana approach was backdated to Nagarjuna, for
GG> credentials.
GG> Say the word / the name, and you'll be free.  Other power.
GG> Of course, like I say, there may never be archeological evidence of such
GG> Christian-Buddhist contact at the inception of Pure Land, (context) ? but
GG> still, one wonders, don't one.  (Similarly, one never knows if any of the
GG> Silk Route travellers had made their way to Galilee ... and influenced Jesus
GG> / his followers ... )

Pure Land descriptions are rooted in the Indian Prajanaparamita
literature. in example in the Amitayurdhyanasutra in where people
is addressed for these contemplations (Beyer in "Prajanaparamita
and Related Studies").

Tariki and Jiriki are a bit different of the Christian notion of other
power. Conze discusses these differences in the first chapters of
Conze's "Thirty years of Buddhist Studies". Suzuki do the same in
"Buddha of Infinite Light".
Inside all the main religions there is some leaving in "other power"
or even a more aseptic "not me". This is quite logical when the
individuality wants to be subdued.

Mithraism influences in Mahayana seem to be related with more formal
influences; in example the presentation of the Boddhisattva as an
heroic ideal or the feminine component. These influences from
Mithraism seem to be explained because the presence of Mahayana
communities in the actual Iran. 

To note the cautions before talking of copies, one can check the
circle walked by Manichaeists. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote about
Manichaeism and Terebinthus, a disciple of Buddha who travelled to
Palestine and was in contact with the Jesus apostles: (points 22 and
23): http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm

Centuries later, Manichaeists were in contact with Chinese Buddhism.
The Manichaeist calling for a "world of light" to rescue the people was
identified in China  with Kuan Yin instead the Pure Land.
So it seems they have developed a similar thing by real Buddhist
influences, and centuries later when they have arrived to China, they
have found something which was not very strange to them.
However, their arrival was in 6 or 7th century, and at this time the
Pure Land doctrine was already established from 400 years ago. And
maybe for that reason, their similar doctrine was understood not the
same at all, and more close to some Kuan Yin attributes than Pure Land.

Also, note other Christians sects were aware about their teachings but
they were rejected. So Christians surely were not ignorant before the
Silk route about similar things of Buddhist "other power".
I mean, some people can know what other people says in a very similar
way. However, their understanding can have enough differences to call
this "another thing". Christians understand the other power with their
own subtleties and Buddhist do the same.
Coincidences and influences can exist although talking of copy would
be a good risk. 


best regards,