2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
I have no difficulty understanding the Diamond Sutra at all. It is natural and easy to me.
It might be useful for you to consider at some point that your understanding of the Diamond sutra might not be as accurate as you think it is, and that you will need to let go of some of your mistaken views to get better insight into its teachings. Maybe you could be confusing a natural interest and resonance in that type of sutras with an actual understanding of the meaning they are conveying. Studying these teachings within a community and with a legitimate teacher might be helpful, instead of trying to figure them out on your own.
I think many of the replies here have tried to point you in the proper direction that should help you understand how the two sutras you quoted are fundamentally teaching the same thing, even though they go at it from distinct perspectives.
In the excerpt you posted, the Amitayurdhyana Sutra is even directly explicit about it when it says: "Seeing the utmost beauty and bliss of that land, they will rejoice and immediately attain the insight into the non-arising of all dharmas".
Comment by hau4300 at 04/02/2025 at 15:53 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The word "seeing" should not be used. The beauty and bliss of the so-called pure land "created" by some supernatural power of Amitabha have nothing to do with "understanding" reality. Mahayana is all about the understanding of reality. Views that are not related to the understanding of reality should not be classified as Mahayana. And the "rebirth" and "dwelling" in the place called "pure land" is neither necessary nor a pre-requisite of enlightenment. Read the story of King Bimbisara in the Amitabha Sutra very careful. It talks about a very specific case of suffering that is a result of some "evil act" of some human beings. But most suffering that sentient beings face are NOT the result of evil acts, but occur naturally. And there is no such thing as "evil" or "pure".
Buddha field is the ultimate reality, not an intermediate refuge for "sentient" beings as described in Amitabha Sutra. Pure land as described in Amitabha Sutra is NOT Buddha field as mentioned in Vimalakirti Sutra. Rebirth to something called "pure land" is unnecessary. I believe the entire pure land view of Buddha's teaching is not only unnecessary, but confusing and does not help any sentient being understand and actualize reality. Buddha nature is inherent in every sentient being. Buddha field is neither "created" nor "uncreated". Claiming that something called "pure land" was created by Amitabha is a major misunderstanding of Buddha nature. Buddha field is everywhere and yet nowhere. It is reality itself.
I don't care about beauty and bliss. They have zero value to me. If you believe you can see something that is beautiful and blissful, you are on the wrong path. Reality is neither beautiful, nor blissful. You don't see these descriptions of reality in Buddha's teaching in the Diamond Sutra.