Talk:Pure Land Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Pure Land Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Are the dates in this article BC or AD? -- Gaurav 01:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AD. Or as some say, CE. --Menchi 01:57, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Only just realised that years in Wikipedia are AD unless explicitly mentioned 'BC'. Is there any place that policy is formally put out? Tried searching but couldn't get anything .. -- Gaurav 14:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Nothing formal, but rather, an accepted rule of English writing. Some article that refers to dynasties that cross-over BC & AD may explicitly state so. BC years will always be stated as such. AD may or may not. The dichotomy alone should be clear. Plus, the context usually helps. --Menchi 03:50, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Organizing Afterlife Articles[edit]

I would like to organize the articles that deal with an otherworld as a real existence. I propose that Afterlife would be the best hub for such articles. Eschatology and Underworld are other possibilities, but I don't think they work as well as Afterlife. Any thoughts on such a project? Please come to Talk:Afterlife to discuss. Tom (hawstom) 14:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Pure Land → Pure Land Buddhism – current article under the lemma describes the buddhist school, but it should describe the concept of the pure land or Sukhavati instead.


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support (initiator) --Mkill 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Ph0kin (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC), I find this confusing as well, even being a Pure Land Buddhist.


The Heading is fine as it is. I have experience with 11 years of Buddhist Pure Land practice as a fully ordained bhikshuni in this tradition. Most searches need very broad terms, newcomers do not even know the Sanskrit and in most places local languages are being used, mainly Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or Korean. With the growth of more interest in Europe there is now German, French and Spanish being used.--Ven Hong Yang, Bhikshuni 03:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenHongyang (talkcontribs)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. From what I can tell, this move was already done, perhaps 4 years ago or more. Actually many discussion items on these pages are very old, as there are not many editors for this subject. All the best. :-) Tengu800 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of the Pure Land yet, as in de:Sukhavati or ja:浄土. The article should be either at Sukhavati, which is only a disambig at the moment, or here. To make space for the article, the current article, describing the buddhist schools based on the concept, should be moved. --Mkill 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Amidism Incorrect?[edit]

The article states that the term Amidism is incorrect, but when searching Google the only pages that said that where directly copying from Wikipedia, so I removed that it was incorrect. I also cited the term "Amidism". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Pure Land Buddhist myself, the term is somewhat archaic and outmoded. It's like the term "Mohammedism" which Muslims find offensive. No one at our temple uses it either. I suggest removing it, except where it's cited as a term no longer used.
Thanks! --Ph0kin (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
one shouldn't over-generalize. When I asked a fellow-pupil at school what his religion was, he said Mohammedan. Peter jackson (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

pure land practice[edit]

everything after the second paragraph in the section "pure land practice" may well be correct but it needs to be re-written with respect to English grammar. Also, is it okay to give references that are not in English, since the text is in English? Certainly in an academic article it would be fine, but i don't know about Wikipedia.Briesas (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy is that English sources are preferred where possible, but foreign ones are allowed. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

I have moved the "Further Reading" section here, because it is excessive and because these works seem to focus on one particular subtopic.

Corless, Roger. 1989. ‘Pure Land and Pure Perspective: A Tantric Hermeneutic of Sukhāvatī.’ The Pure Land, New Series, 6: 205-17.

Halkias, T. Georgios. 2009. “Compassionate Aspirations and their fulfilment: Dol-po-pa’s A Prayer for Birth in Sukhāvatī .” In As Long As Space Endures: Essays on the Kālachakra Tantra in Honor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, pp. 259–275.

_____. 2006. “Pure-Lands and other Visions in Seventeenth-Century Tibet: a Gnam-chos sādhana for the pure-land Sukhāvatī revealed in 1658 by Gnam-chos Mi-’gyur-rdo-rje (1645-1667).” In Power, Politics and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century, ed. B. Cuevas et al. Leiden: Brill Publishers, pp. 121–151.

______.2006. Transferring to the Land of Bliss: Among Sukhavati Texts and Practices. Doctoral Thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Kajihama, Ryoshun. 2002a. Tibet no Jyōdo Shisō no Kenkyū (Japanese. The Study of Pure Land in Tibet). Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō.

______.2002b. “3rd rDo Gruchen Rinpoche’s Pure Land Thought (III).” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 50/2: 984-87.

______.1996. “3rd rDo Gruchen Rinpoche’s Pure Land Thought (II).” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 44/2: 948-52.

______.1994. “3rd rDo Gruchen Rinpoche’s Pure Land Thought (I).” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 43/1: 492-98.

______.1991. “A Study of a Prayer Book on Rebirth in the Land of Bliss (Sukhāvatī) Written by Tsong kha pa.” Monograph published by the Faculty of International Language and Culture, Setsunan University, 23/3: 293-322.

Kapstein, Matthew. 2004. “Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet? From Sukhāvatī to the Field of Great Bliss.” In Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha, ed. R. Payne and K. Tanaka. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1-16.

______.1998. “A Pilgrimage of Rebirth Reborn: the 1992 Celebration of the Drigung Powa Chenmo”. In Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet, ed. M. Goldstein and M. Kapstein, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 95-119.

Mei, Ching Hsuan. 2004. “’Pho ba Liturgy in 14th Century Tibet.” Tibet Journal, XXIX/2: 47-70.

Silk, Jonathan. 1993. “The Virtues of Amitābha: A Tibetan Poem from Dunhuang.” Bükkyo Bunka Kenkyüjo Kiyö, 32.

Smith, H. and Novak, P. (2003). "The Flowering of Faith: Buddhism's Pure Land Tradition" (pp. 185-198) in Smith, Huston; Philip Novak (2003). Buddhism: A concise introduction. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0060506962. 

Copyediting Query[edit]

"Gyatrul (b.1924),[37] in a purport to the work of Chagmé..." Is purport the right word in this, the first sentence of the last paragraph? I have never seen it used as a noun (as it apparently functions here) this way. It seems like "introduction" "comment (on), or maybe "report (on)" is what is needed here instead. I urge anyone who knows about Gyatrul and what relation exactly his writing bears to that of Chagmé to clarify this sentence.Prohairesius (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


In the article it says "Those who practice this method often commit to a fixed set of repetitions per day, often from 50,000 to over 500,000". Given that a day has 86400 seconds, 500,000 repetitions a day would require 6 repetitions a second, without a break, for 24 hours, after which the next "fixed set of repetitions" begins. What I am trying to say is: The given numbers are rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoSchizzatore (talkcontribs) 07:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point, and those numbers did seem unrealistically high. I've removed the numbers until more is known about the matter. Tengu800 09:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)