This is just
for pure fun. Every language, culture, or religion may have its own words and
concept of paradise or heaven. Buddhism is no exception. In course of time, it
has developed various notions of paradise or heaven. By the way, nivāṇa is
not a paradise or heaven. There are, in general, concepts of “higher
realms” and “lower realms,” “good or happy existences” and “bad or miserable
existences,” “worldly spheres” and “Buddhaic spheres,” “pure realms” and
“impure realms,” and so forth. Impure realms are usually said to be karmically
produced, whereas pure realms may be produced through the previous resolutions
of certain Buddhas and which serve as kinds of temporary stations of relief
that would enable one to pursue one’s onward journey towards becoming a buddha.
Not all higher realms are heavenly realms. Human realm, for example, is a
higher realm but not a heavenly or celestial realm. Not all lower realms are
hellish realms (be they hyperthermic or hypothermic hells). Animalic realm is a
lower realm but not a hellish realm. Paradisical realm of the Buddha Amitābha
is called Sukhāvatī (“[Realm] Endowed with Bliss].” Based on East-Asian
tradition and sources, it came to be known as the “Pure Land of Amitābha,” and
the Buddhist tradition that is associated with it is known as
“Pure-Land Buddhism,” although one is tempted to call it “Land-of-Bliss
Buddhism” instead. In the Tibetan tradition, there is no such a thing
“Sukhāvatī Buddhism” although followers of each school might believe that
birth in the Sukhāvatī is a possible (albeit only temporary) option.
Paradisical realm of a Buddha is not limited to that
of Buddha Amitābha alone. Akṣobhya and the like, too, have their own
paradisical realms. Tārā, too, has her own paradisical realm. Padmasambhava’s paradisical realm
is very popular among his followers. In the end, we also encounter the idea
that heaven or hell is one’s own projection or construction, and thus one
should rather aspire to cleanse one’s own intellectual emotional defilements
and other obscurations. Such a paradisical realm in Buddhism may be called a
“Buddhist Elysian Field” or “Buddhist Elysium” or “Buddhist Edenic Abode.” The
theory or study of paradise-like realms or spheres in Buddhism may be called
“Buddhist Paradiseology” or “Buddhist Edenology.” Just a random thought!
(Personal blog of Dorji Wangchuk (Kuliśeśvara) for philosophical reflection, speculation, and deliberation)
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Buddhist Hodology
My obsession with coining new
(or borrowing old) words for expressing certain ideas in Buddhist philosophy
and religion continues. This time it is “Hodology.” It is supposed to mean
“study of pathways.” The word is derived from the Greek hodos,
meaning “path.” It is used in various contexts such as in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and geography. I wish to use this word in Buddhist philosophy and
soteriology. Let us say “Buddhist hodology.” In the Buddhist context, it is
supposed to include all reflections, explanations, descriptions, and
systematization of topics all subsumed under what Tibetan Buddhist scholars
would call “discourses of the spiritual stages and paths” (sa dang lam gyi
rnam gzhag). This is an important topic. One could also call “Buddhist
Mārgology.” Nowadays we use the expression “Meditation Theories” very vaguely
to express the theories of bhūmis
and mārgas. But the
expression is perhaps too narrow. “Buddhist hodology” would include everything
that is linked with Buddhist soteriology. It would deal with mundane (laukika)
and supramundane (lokottara) paths, the correct and the wrong paths, the
pitfalls and dangers on the way, regression and progression, signs, qualities,
and achievements. In order to have a historically (or diachronically) and
doctrinally (or synchronically) representative picture of Buddhist hodology,
one has to consider hodology from the perspective of various schools and
systems of Buddhism. At any rate, I feel that the use of the
use of the term “Buddhist hodology” is justifiable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)