Closing Statement:
In conclusion, from a historical perspective both Ch’an and Pure Land Buddhism are popular religions around the world. Yet Pure Land Buddhism has been designated as a “discrete school”, while Ch’an Buddhism has enjoyed immense admiration since its inception (Sharf 238). Evidence of this popularity is linked to prominent medieval Chinese monasteries; this demonstrates its deep historical roots, while Pure Land Buddhism has no such links (Sharf 238). While we do not argue that both forms of Buddhism are valid, in a global scale Ch’an seems to have more impact than Pure Land. One of the main reasons for this would be Pure Land Buddhism’s unorganized diversity and local variations. Ch’an Buddhism has very strict rules and regulations, making its principals …show more content…
In this sense we believe Ch’an is more established as a school of religion than Pure Land. Also, while Zen does take a great amount of commitment, it can be done at the practisers own pace (Borup 80). It also boasts an attainable goal in which the practitioner does not have to die in order to reach enlightenment (Humphreys). The Ch’an belief that Buddha is within oneself and not an individual who needs to be praised, (like the Buddha Amitābha in Pure Land) to reach enlightenment ties more closely to original Mahayana Buddhism. Ch’an meditation also attains its roots in Mahayana Buddhism. And while most believe Ch’an to be a difficult lonely process with no aid, this is simply not true. Koans, discipline, and direction are all tools used by a Zen master to teach a student how to become truly enlightened. Ch’an students, through these historical traditions and immense amount of dedication use these tools as part of their experience in understanding the meaning of life. Although it presents a much more challenging route to enlightenment, it can be argued that almost every major religion requires some kind of sacrifice to reach enlightenment. This is another
In conclusion, from a historical perspective both Ch’an and Pure Land Buddhism are popular religions around the world. Yet Pure Land Buddhism has been designated as a “discrete school”, while Ch’an Buddhism has enjoyed immense admiration since its inception (Sharf 238). Evidence of this popularity is linked to prominent medieval Chinese monasteries; this demonstrates its deep historical roots, while Pure Land Buddhism has no such links (Sharf 238). While we do not argue that both forms of Buddhism are valid, in a global scale Ch’an seems to have more impact than Pure Land. One of the main reasons for this would be Pure Land Buddhism’s unorganized diversity and local variations. Ch’an Buddhism has very strict rules and regulations, making its principals …show more content…
In this sense we believe Ch’an is more established as a school of religion than Pure Land. Also, while Zen does take a great amount of commitment, it can be done at the practisers own pace (Borup 80). It also boasts an attainable goal in which the practitioner does not have to die in order to reach enlightenment (Humphreys). The Ch’an belief that Buddha is within oneself and not an individual who needs to be praised, (like the Buddha Amitābha in Pure Land) to reach enlightenment ties more closely to original Mahayana Buddhism. Ch’an meditation also attains its roots in Mahayana Buddhism. And while most believe Ch’an to be a difficult lonely process with no aid, this is simply not true. Koans, discipline, and direction are all tools used by a Zen master to teach a student how to become truly enlightened. Ch’an students, through these historical traditions and immense amount of dedication use these tools as part of their experience in understanding the meaning of life. Although it presents a much more challenging route to enlightenment, it can be argued that almost every major religion requires some kind of sacrifice to reach enlightenment. This is another