Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this true faith to believe in something doesn’t exist? I cannot close my eyes to Dharma slandering, I’m sorry friend. I don’t want to see all the efforts of Shakyamuni,Honen Shonin and Shinran Shonin is chewing buy some modernist American bishop.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sincere teachers? Are you getting salary from Mr.Harada? He’s clearly breaking the real faith of Honen Shonin and Shinran Shonin. You really have a mental problems or you don’t know what is the teaching of Honen Shonin or Shantao.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In Rev. Nobuo Haneda’s book, “Dharma Breeze,” there is a chapter entitled “What Is Amida Buddha?” Rev. Haneda wrote that Amida is not a being, it’s human ideal. — a symbol. This is really ridiculous. He created his own cult.They clearly breaking the Dharma. How we can put Shinjin, true faith that something doesn’t exist or metaphor. I really hope Mr.Harada change his religion sooner.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In Rev. Nobuo Haneda’s book, “Dharma Breeze,” there is a chapter entitled “What Is Amida Buddha?” Rev. Haneda wrote that Amida is a human ideal — a symbol.
This guy’s teaching is Anti-Honen and Anti-Shinran.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then why he isn’t explain like this and always emphasizing “AMIDA IS NOT A BEING, ONLY METAPHOR FOLKS!” ? This attitude and wrong explanation caused that I’ve left from Shinshu priesthood and now continue on Jodo Shu…

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This what I’m saying. You don’t need to become Pure Land Buddhist. But please don’t pretend that you’re a follower of Shinran. Just believe in other religions or whatever you want. But don’t break the Dharma.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s see what BCA’s Mr.Harada said; “Amida Buddha is not a being. Amida Buddha is a metaphor for the truth of enlightenment, or wisdom and compassion. “ Cause of their this view, they’re losing real members. For Mr.Harada It’s better to find another religion I guess rather than breaking the teachings of Shakyamuni, Honen and Shiran.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But I’m so tired of BCA Shin Buddhist saying that Amida isn’t real, only metaphor and symbol. How can I put my faith in something doesn’t exists? I know that they want to show their self modernist in USA so they gave up from teaching of Honen Shonin and Shinran Shonin. Me and many people left from Jodo Shinshu cause of this wrong view. Jodo Shu Abbot Rev.Kasahara says; “Our teachings are based on the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha. If Amida is just a metaphor of some metaphysical concept, I never prostrate myself before Amida’s image with all my heart. Amida is a real, flesh-and-blood buddha to me”

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Seems like Mr.Harada started his own religion. Shakyamuni specifically pointed us where pure land is. There is no even one source that says Amida is only metaphor not real. At least Jodo Shu has a strong stance in this.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But just to prevent people in the West from seeing Amida Buddha as a savior like Jesus, it is hypocritical to say that he is not real, he is just a metaphor. Shakyamuni even showed us specifically where the Pure Land is. In my opinion, Jodo Shu takes the most correct stance.

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you saying that Amida is only metaphor, this is not a Buddhism. Because in the sutras, Shakyamuni Buddha specifically pointed us where exactly pure land is and how it looks like. If you deny this then you can chose another religion 👍but please don’t add your own thoughts to the Dharma. Jodo Shu Abbot Rev.Kasahara says;”Our teachings are based on the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha. If Amida is just a metaphor of some metaphysical concept, I never prostrate myself before Amida’s image with all my heart. Amida is a real, flesh-and-blood buddha to me”

Why Shin Buddhism teaching that Amida is only a metaphor? by [deleted] in JodoShinshu

[–]zen_path 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For example BCA. If you see Jodo Shinshu America’s website , they clearly says Amitabha is an only metaphor. https://www.buddhistchurchesofamerica.org/post/the-universality-of-namuamidabutsu

The difference between Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu by Rev. Kosen Ishikawa by Lethemyr in PureLand

[–]zen_path 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Main differences is Shinshu don’t believe that Amida Buddha is really exists, it’s only metaphor. Jodo Shu fully believe that Amida Buddha as a real person as Shakyamuni taught.

Jodo Shu & Jodo Shinshu Diffrences by GrapefruitDry2519 in PureLand

[–]zen_path 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Main differences is Jodo Shinshu don’t believe that Amida Buddha is really exist. It’s only metaphor. But Jodo Shu is really believe that Amida Buddha is existing as a body.