[Buddha-l] pure land

[Gary Gach]

Just one sentence seems to call for my response.

> I think it is dubious to claim that Pure Land Buddhism requires the kind
> of "explanation" you are positing that it does (that is - it contains
> ideas that are "foreign" to Buddhism so they must have come from
> somewhere else).

If I came off as so claiming or requiring, am so sorry for having been
over-brief.  Nor did I mean any question of import nor copy.  Rather, I
wonder about dynamic interchange between great worldviews —  amplified to a
greater convivium lest we forget Mithra.  So I am not, for sake of a
for-instance, making a case that Zen "needs" Taoism as explanation of
anything external to Dharma — although that contextual cultural factor is
*an* influence in the successful realization of ancient Chan roots; nor of
Dhyana as direct source of certain Gnostics.   As Vicente Gonzalez says, if
I have him a-right: "Coincidences and influences can exist although talking
of copy would be a good risk."

I thank you for the responsa.  Another reason I am so glad Buddha-L is no
longer being subsumed by my G-mail spam filter.  I'll now resume quietly
monitoring, as but a mere ant on an alabaster column of an elephantine
palace.


Gary
http://buddhistchannel.tv
http://word.to