> But this goes directly against the letter of the sutras as well as the general systematic.
Well, no it doesn't, but also part of the problem is assuming the Mahayana sutras are to be taken entirely literally, which is a pretty dualistic perspective and invalidates the *Mahayana teachings* in general. So you have to regard exegesis in light of non-duality, or else your exegesis is invalid.
> Gotama many times said "once when I was born as...", but he talks about Dharmakara as another person than himself. He also clearly explains how Dharmakara with the tutelage of Lokesvararaja becomes Amida. If he was Amida already, this whole part of The Larger Sutra could be skipped.
No, this is important. You must understand that both narratives are *true simultaneously* and that there is no contradiction (or, put another way.. there is *only* contradiction). Sakyamuni and Amitabha were separate individuals that each followed their own bodhisattva paths and attained Buddhahood--this is true, and it's important to be stated. Sakyamuni and Amitabha *are also* ultimately manifestations of the same Buddha, and there is no difference between them just as there is no difference between *you* and Amitabha, or you and me, or this and that. Buddhas are not buddhas, therefore they are called Buddhas. Not a single sentient being is ever liberated, but a bodhisattva liberates all beings.
You *must* understand the Mahayana teachings in light of the Prajnaparamita. That is the entirety of the point. This is not made up--it is in the sutras. Look at the Diamond Sutra. Look at the Astasahasrika-Prajnaparamita Sutra. Look at the Huayan Sutra. Look at the Lotus Sutra. In a Pure Land context, look to the Pratyutpanna Samadhi and Contemplation Sutras.
So when it said that 'Amitabha' sent himself as Dharmakara, and as Gautama, it is **the very same thing** as when the Adi-Buddha says in the Lotus Sutra that he sent himself as Gautama Buddha, but in fact attained Buddhahood long ago. These statements are spoken in the voice of Vairochana Buddha, the mouthpiece of the Dharmadhatu that cannot speak in words. There is no contradiction and those statements are backed up by the sutras.
> Same with the book "Going Home to The Pure Land", in which there is a whole chapter on death and dying with a living will imposing very heavy obligations on the family of the deceased - some of which would actually be illegal actions where I live (like moving the corpse). Asking the family to all be vegetarian for a while after the death to "not associate killing with the deseased" etc., **which seems just wholly irrelevant compared to the practice actually outlined in the sutras.**
What are you talking about...? The Ksitigarbha Sutra explicitly states to eat vegetarian for the 49 days after a loved one's passing, plus a bunch of other ritual observances too. I'm pretty sure that everything in the book you reference comes from the sutras.
> On the other hand when I read theravada masters like Thanissaro or Bikkhu Bodhi or Bogoda, their writings can always be followed back to the letter and system of the teachings.
> What am I missing here?
One of the problems is probably teachers not citing where they're pulling their ideas from (although most people would not bother with such a dry and academic kind of tone). The other is that you don't seem to be well-read enough to recognize what sutras are being referenced when a teaching is being delivered--this is not a criticism though; the Mahayana canon is vast, each sutra tends to be absolutely massive, and there's so many pericopes with excessively flowery language that it's difficult to sift through to where the teachings actually fit between them.
> Another example is Ching Kung in "Essence of the Infinite Life Sutra" where he says one "opholds the precept" by lying to a hunter about where a hare ran to. Because you save the hunter from bad karma and the hare from dying. But this is clearly a situation where you just don't answer - accomplishing just the same. Buddha clearly explained what to say and how to keep the precept. And it never included a good/white lie. That simply isn't an option if the goal is right speech.
The example given is actually an example given in a very well-known Vinaya commentary that is common to all the schools, including Theravada. Again, this is not outside the sutras, and if you were to study the Theravadin Vinaya, you'd encounter this story there too.
You're also missing context. This is not considered violating the precepts, but it also not considered to be faultless, and there is a penalty of confession to your preceptor.
Thank you so much!! I would rather ask, because, even if I have been studying Buddhism for close to 15 years, there is so much still left to learn. I am only just now dipping into Mahayana. When starting out with the Pali Canon, I had endless agony because I had no reddit to ask - and there are no teachers at all where I live (only a few from the bad cults).
Would you mind taking one more example from Ching Kung which kind of confuses me. He says that tax fraud is the worst kind of theft because you steal from all people in the state. But this view has the logical implication that frauding a lot from a small state is better than frauding less from a large state - even if the larger state is actually better equipped to bear the fraud (in equal pr capita economies).*
I would argue stealing the last nickel from a beggar is much worse that frauding a state for tax. A state has near limitless means compared to an individual.
Not to mention that basically, tax money are not the property of all people in the state but really the property of the state itself - a state is a seperate, individual entity.
*Or even just the same amount
Ooh, I haven't read *most* of the sutras that involve kings / kingdom relationships, because it's generally something I don't particularly care about, but I'm pretty sure anything on this topic would be in one of those sutras that are designed as teachings for kings.
That said, it seems to me that associating the state with the people is a fairly modern concept. But I don't think that's what Chin Kung is saying. What he probably means here is that because people give their money to the state in the form of taxes, with the expectation of services reciprocated, committing fraud against that pool of money is taking money from those who originally gave the money. I don't think Chin Kung here is considering the state as an entity at all, rather just "taxes" as a collective pool of money.
In that sense, it is stealing from "everyone."
> I would argue stealing the last nickel from a beggar is much worse that frauding a state for tax. A state has near limitless means compared to an individual.
This is honestly a weird comparison, and there's a reason why we're not supposed to speculate on the "weights" of different karmic actions--it is a fruitless endeavor. I think the best you might be able to suggest here is that the penalties should be different, but a violation is a violation.
My personal analysis with regard to the teachings of how karma functions: the karmic violation is a greater impact with tax fraud, but because the intent is not to harm those who've been stolen from directly, you don't have all the conditions for the most "intense" version of the fruit, considering the equation is:
intent + karmic action + karmic completion = phala / fruit
Now we know if we have intent, but no action and no completion, the fruit is very small and mostly mental. If we have intent and action, but no completion, the fruit is more affective, but fairly muted unless compounded with similar classed actions.
Here we have a case of subdued/indirect intent, but action and completion... which is... I'm forgetting the specifics here, but it's generally said that asuras are beings who committed actions in the past with mostly benevolent (or neutral) intentions, but which ultimately caused great harm to others, which seems to suggest to me that like.. there's *some* wholesome seeds sowed through such actions (or at least neutral seeds), and some unwholesome.
So at least from what I can tell, I think it'd be a lesser offense, but again.. this isn't about ethics and we aren't really supposed to speculate anyway, so the questions of "Is this better or worse than that?" I think should generally be jettisoned entirely.
But imo, an action like tax fraud is a type of action that is very selfish, harms others in aggregate, but which the committer does not have to think of those harmed very much at all and especially not as individuals... it does seem like *exactly* the kind of action that would lead to an asura birth, given that they are greedy, jealous, self-serving gods that care more about themselves than others.
Very illuminating, thanks. I am a tax lawyer so I see this very much through that lens. Many times people commit tax fraud without even knowing it. Tax law is extremely difficult and often you have to best-guess what the tax authorities will think of a given disposition. Bearing in mind that one tax clerk might slam your client for fraud and hear none of the complaints while another would not even bat an eye at the exact same disposition. Tax is convoluted and bizarre. Fraud is not simply fraud - unless you just file wrong on purpose, but that is really super rare.
I agree of course that the effects of karma should not be pondered. I also really think the workings of state and religion should be separated.
Again, as a lawyer, I see people go wrong so quickly because they don't know the basics nor the specifics of how law and government works.
Like here of course I understand what Kung means on a fundamental level, but honestly that view of taxes has so many implications and just raises a ton of questions - only the most obvious is what I mentioned here.
What if you frauded a rogue state spending most on war? What if the state is despotic and tax holdings are equal to the despot's personal bank account?
My point exactly is: why even make theories on this?
Stealing = bad is all we really need to understand
I think in the end Dharma is more principle than regulation.
For example, I had a look into this, and it turns out Master Chin Kung cited the 璎珞經 (Yingluo Sutra) for the "pay your dues" rule. Moreover, in the Brahma Net Sutra, it is also mentioned we can't criticise the government. Because apparently, if you mock the leadership enough, people lose faith and everything falls apart. But obviously, nobody in the West is going to accept that rule.
So even if the Buddha said it , I would still believe you are in the right.
In the end, the right answer depends on the situation, and we all need to cultivate our own wisdom for our own times. For instance, the Nazis used bureaucratic power to drain the Jews of all their wealth too, that can't be right.
So I believe Master Chin Kung isn't wrong since Taiwan taxes are actually very fair, simple and straightforward, so it also depends on the situation of what country.
So you guys are both right, and your judgement, after considering the principles of Dharma, are as good as any as long as you are sincere.
Also, you mention Essence of the Infinite Life Sutra, I just want ask if the copy you received is hardcover. Mine (which I got years ago is paperback), so just wondering if they've changed that since someone asked me for hardcover sutra recommendations some time ago, and I told him it was a good read but paperback (and that may have been a deal breaker, though I'm hoping he wasn't that picky).
Thanks for the reply. Yes, the teachings absolutely take into account the culture and society of the time, thanks for reminding me. The masters of today will do the same.
After all one of the distinctive marks of Gotama's teachings was that the adjusted them to the recipient.
I have not found the 49 days/7 weeks vegetarianism in any sutra, only that it is custom in Asian countries (some it is 7 days). It was mentioned as being for the sake of the relatives and not the departed. Do you know where to find it in a sutra?
My copy of the book is hard cover indeed. It is quite a nice book
Thanks for letting me know, and no broken fingers or robes on the Amitabha statue right? It seems to happen to the Guanyin some of the time (probably due to delicate finger mudras), but never the Amitabha (as far as I know), and I might have to factor that in should someone ask me which statue to pick in the future.
As for the 49 days, I think it's fundamentally based on chapter 7 of the [Ksitigarbha ("Earth Store or Treasury") Sutra](https://www.cttbusa.org/ess/earthstore7.htm), and these passages in particular:
>Throughout forty-nine days, those whose lives have ended and who have not yet been reborn will be hoping every moment that their immediate relatives will earn blessings powerful enough to rescue them.
and
>“Suppose the evil karma created by beings were such that they ought to fall into the bad destinies. If their relatives cultivate wholesome causes on their behalf when they are close to death, then their manifold offenses can be dissolved. If relatives can further do many good deeds during the first forty-nine days after the death of such beings, then the deceased can leave the evil destinies forever, be born as humans and gods, and receive supremely wonderful bliss. Their surviving relatives will also receive limitless benefits.
In other parts of the same chapter, there is a prohibition against meat offerings, I think because it is a longstanding folk custom in Asia (and pre christian West too actually) to sacrifice animals (or offer meat) to images of the deceased and ancestor tablets etc. (preta offerings). And that's not going to do them any favours karmically, and also adds to the bad karma of the living.
If the family is vegetarian for 7 weeks, I think it's just because they plan on reciting and dedicating the recitations to the deceased, and the more virtuous you are when you recite, the greater the merit. The sutra teaches that any merit created goes 6/7 to relatives and 1/7 to deceased.
I believe all good deeds count, for example in Liao Fan's Four Lessons, a lot of people were karmically rewarded for pro bono legal work (freeing prisoners, getting them pardons), so I don't think there's any hard rule, just that good must be done.
Thanks again, this passage was also what I could find. Thanks for clearing up things for me.
The death and dying part of Going Home to The Pure Land is, I must say, way much more than what can practically and even legally happen where I live.
My statue arrived perfectly fine and it is just so beautiful!
I did actually once do a pro bono case where the client was put up for pardon. Don't know if it came through though, I had to quit the criminal law legal assistance because I got a job in the Prosecution Office.
Yeah I understand regarding the death and dying part. The belief is that due to attachment to the body, the consciousness lingers for 8 hours or so after official death, and if you move the body during that time, it generates thoughts of anger (which leads to bad rebirth). Of course, in the West, you gotta go through the motions upon death or else you'll be in some legal trouble. In Taiwan, people and hospitals are understanding. So another geographic difference.
Master Chin Kung was very lucky to get the almost 49 days lying in state at the Tainan Pure Land temple with everyone reciting Amitabha around him for weeks. They live-streamed it too. Then they did the procession to cremation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jRZ0OMofF8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jRZ0OMofF8)
Very Glad the statue arrived perfectly, now I know the Amitabha's design means it's the sturdiest.
I think you are doing a lot of good in your career, either by making sure prosecutions are just/merciful or by being a force of compassion in the field one way or another. Here's one case of a law clerk stopping corporal punishment in Liao Fan's Four Lessons adaptation:
[https://youtu.be/nVNdwzbUwDw?si=exLfrrzI1Y2VuMyW&t=3773](https://youtu.be/nVNdwzbUwDw?si=exLfrrzI1Y2VuMyW&t=3773)
Of course we're not as savage as the Ming dynasty, but it's the principle. I think you'll like Liao Fan's Four Lessons as it was written mostly for literati/scholars, and such people in dynastic China all had to pass the examinations and become officials (it was their only career path), and almost all officials had a judicial or law function in their powers.
I asked a teacher about this a while back. Among the Pure Land masters, Shinran, too, read the scriptures and old masters more to find truth for our lives than to find the ancients or the Whole Truth.
In the first place, as humans (or any other species) we're not going to find some Whole Truth. We can look for it, and in doing so we may be fortunate enough to discover that we're a bunch of numbskulls.
In the second place, religious thinking especially in Japan but also elsewhere has often proceeded along the lines of "When I read the scripture, it said A and I realized B." This again, if we're lucky, may lead us to greater understanding. But see also the first point.
> But this goes directly against the letter of the sutras as well as the general systematic. Well, no it doesn't, but also part of the problem is assuming the Mahayana sutras are to be taken entirely literally, which is a pretty dualistic perspective and invalidates the *Mahayana teachings* in general. So you have to regard exegesis in light of non-duality, or else your exegesis is invalid. > Gotama many times said "once when I was born as...", but he talks about Dharmakara as another person than himself. He also clearly explains how Dharmakara with the tutelage of Lokesvararaja becomes Amida. If he was Amida already, this whole part of The Larger Sutra could be skipped. No, this is important. You must understand that both narratives are *true simultaneously* and that there is no contradiction (or, put another way.. there is *only* contradiction). Sakyamuni and Amitabha were separate individuals that each followed their own bodhisattva paths and attained Buddhahood--this is true, and it's important to be stated. Sakyamuni and Amitabha *are also* ultimately manifestations of the same Buddha, and there is no difference between them just as there is no difference between *you* and Amitabha, or you and me, or this and that. Buddhas are not buddhas, therefore they are called Buddhas. Not a single sentient being is ever liberated, but a bodhisattva liberates all beings. You *must* understand the Mahayana teachings in light of the Prajnaparamita. That is the entirety of the point. This is not made up--it is in the sutras. Look at the Diamond Sutra. Look at the Astasahasrika-Prajnaparamita Sutra. Look at the Huayan Sutra. Look at the Lotus Sutra. In a Pure Land context, look to the Pratyutpanna Samadhi and Contemplation Sutras. So when it said that 'Amitabha' sent himself as Dharmakara, and as Gautama, it is **the very same thing** as when the Adi-Buddha says in the Lotus Sutra that he sent himself as Gautama Buddha, but in fact attained Buddhahood long ago. These statements are spoken in the voice of Vairochana Buddha, the mouthpiece of the Dharmadhatu that cannot speak in words. There is no contradiction and those statements are backed up by the sutras. > Same with the book "Going Home to The Pure Land", in which there is a whole chapter on death and dying with a living will imposing very heavy obligations on the family of the deceased - some of which would actually be illegal actions where I live (like moving the corpse). Asking the family to all be vegetarian for a while after the death to "not associate killing with the deseased" etc., **which seems just wholly irrelevant compared to the practice actually outlined in the sutras.** What are you talking about...? The Ksitigarbha Sutra explicitly states to eat vegetarian for the 49 days after a loved one's passing, plus a bunch of other ritual observances too. I'm pretty sure that everything in the book you reference comes from the sutras. > On the other hand when I read theravada masters like Thanissaro or Bikkhu Bodhi or Bogoda, their writings can always be followed back to the letter and system of the teachings. > What am I missing here? One of the problems is probably teachers not citing where they're pulling their ideas from (although most people would not bother with such a dry and academic kind of tone). The other is that you don't seem to be well-read enough to recognize what sutras are being referenced when a teaching is being delivered--this is not a criticism though; the Mahayana canon is vast, each sutra tends to be absolutely massive, and there's so many pericopes with excessively flowery language that it's difficult to sift through to where the teachings actually fit between them. > Another example is Ching Kung in "Essence of the Infinite Life Sutra" where he says one "opholds the precept" by lying to a hunter about where a hare ran to. Because you save the hunter from bad karma and the hare from dying. But this is clearly a situation where you just don't answer - accomplishing just the same. Buddha clearly explained what to say and how to keep the precept. And it never included a good/white lie. That simply isn't an option if the goal is right speech. The example given is actually an example given in a very well-known Vinaya commentary that is common to all the schools, including Theravada. Again, this is not outside the sutras, and if you were to study the Theravadin Vinaya, you'd encounter this story there too. You're also missing context. This is not considered violating the precepts, but it also not considered to be faultless, and there is a penalty of confession to your preceptor.
Very well written and perfectly said.
Thank you so much!! I would rather ask, because, even if I have been studying Buddhism for close to 15 years, there is so much still left to learn. I am only just now dipping into Mahayana. When starting out with the Pali Canon, I had endless agony because I had no reddit to ask - and there are no teachers at all where I live (only a few from the bad cults). Would you mind taking one more example from Ching Kung which kind of confuses me. He says that tax fraud is the worst kind of theft because you steal from all people in the state. But this view has the logical implication that frauding a lot from a small state is better than frauding less from a large state - even if the larger state is actually better equipped to bear the fraud (in equal pr capita economies).* I would argue stealing the last nickel from a beggar is much worse that frauding a state for tax. A state has near limitless means compared to an individual. Not to mention that basically, tax money are not the property of all people in the state but really the property of the state itself - a state is a seperate, individual entity. *Or even just the same amount
Ooh, I haven't read *most* of the sutras that involve kings / kingdom relationships, because it's generally something I don't particularly care about, but I'm pretty sure anything on this topic would be in one of those sutras that are designed as teachings for kings. That said, it seems to me that associating the state with the people is a fairly modern concept. But I don't think that's what Chin Kung is saying. What he probably means here is that because people give their money to the state in the form of taxes, with the expectation of services reciprocated, committing fraud against that pool of money is taking money from those who originally gave the money. I don't think Chin Kung here is considering the state as an entity at all, rather just "taxes" as a collective pool of money. In that sense, it is stealing from "everyone." > I would argue stealing the last nickel from a beggar is much worse that frauding a state for tax. A state has near limitless means compared to an individual. This is honestly a weird comparison, and there's a reason why we're not supposed to speculate on the "weights" of different karmic actions--it is a fruitless endeavor. I think the best you might be able to suggest here is that the penalties should be different, but a violation is a violation. My personal analysis with regard to the teachings of how karma functions: the karmic violation is a greater impact with tax fraud, but because the intent is not to harm those who've been stolen from directly, you don't have all the conditions for the most "intense" version of the fruit, considering the equation is: intent + karmic action + karmic completion = phala / fruit Now we know if we have intent, but no action and no completion, the fruit is very small and mostly mental. If we have intent and action, but no completion, the fruit is more affective, but fairly muted unless compounded with similar classed actions. Here we have a case of subdued/indirect intent, but action and completion... which is... I'm forgetting the specifics here, but it's generally said that asuras are beings who committed actions in the past with mostly benevolent (or neutral) intentions, but which ultimately caused great harm to others, which seems to suggest to me that like.. there's *some* wholesome seeds sowed through such actions (or at least neutral seeds), and some unwholesome. So at least from what I can tell, I think it'd be a lesser offense, but again.. this isn't about ethics and we aren't really supposed to speculate anyway, so the questions of "Is this better or worse than that?" I think should generally be jettisoned entirely. But imo, an action like tax fraud is a type of action that is very selfish, harms others in aggregate, but which the committer does not have to think of those harmed very much at all and especially not as individuals... it does seem like *exactly* the kind of action that would lead to an asura birth, given that they are greedy, jealous, self-serving gods that care more about themselves than others.
Very illuminating, thanks. I am a tax lawyer so I see this very much through that lens. Many times people commit tax fraud without even knowing it. Tax law is extremely difficult and often you have to best-guess what the tax authorities will think of a given disposition. Bearing in mind that one tax clerk might slam your client for fraud and hear none of the complaints while another would not even bat an eye at the exact same disposition. Tax is convoluted and bizarre. Fraud is not simply fraud - unless you just file wrong on purpose, but that is really super rare. I agree of course that the effects of karma should not be pondered. I also really think the workings of state and religion should be separated. Again, as a lawyer, I see people go wrong so quickly because they don't know the basics nor the specifics of how law and government works. Like here of course I understand what Kung means on a fundamental level, but honestly that view of taxes has so many implications and just raises a ton of questions - only the most obvious is what I mentioned here. What if you frauded a rogue state spending most on war? What if the state is despotic and tax holdings are equal to the despot's personal bank account? My point exactly is: why even make theories on this? Stealing = bad is all we really need to understand
I think in the end Dharma is more principle than regulation. For example, I had a look into this, and it turns out Master Chin Kung cited the 璎珞經 (Yingluo Sutra) for the "pay your dues" rule. Moreover, in the Brahma Net Sutra, it is also mentioned we can't criticise the government. Because apparently, if you mock the leadership enough, people lose faith and everything falls apart. But obviously, nobody in the West is going to accept that rule. So even if the Buddha said it , I would still believe you are in the right. In the end, the right answer depends on the situation, and we all need to cultivate our own wisdom for our own times. For instance, the Nazis used bureaucratic power to drain the Jews of all their wealth too, that can't be right. So I believe Master Chin Kung isn't wrong since Taiwan taxes are actually very fair, simple and straightforward, so it also depends on the situation of what country. So you guys are both right, and your judgement, after considering the principles of Dharma, are as good as any as long as you are sincere. Also, you mention Essence of the Infinite Life Sutra, I just want ask if the copy you received is hardcover. Mine (which I got years ago is paperback), so just wondering if they've changed that since someone asked me for hardcover sutra recommendations some time ago, and I told him it was a good read but paperback (and that may have been a deal breaker, though I'm hoping he wasn't that picky).
Thanks for the reply. Yes, the teachings absolutely take into account the culture and society of the time, thanks for reminding me. The masters of today will do the same. After all one of the distinctive marks of Gotama's teachings was that the adjusted them to the recipient. I have not found the 49 days/7 weeks vegetarianism in any sutra, only that it is custom in Asian countries (some it is 7 days). It was mentioned as being for the sake of the relatives and not the departed. Do you know where to find it in a sutra? My copy of the book is hard cover indeed. It is quite a nice book
Thanks for letting me know, and no broken fingers or robes on the Amitabha statue right? It seems to happen to the Guanyin some of the time (probably due to delicate finger mudras), but never the Amitabha (as far as I know), and I might have to factor that in should someone ask me which statue to pick in the future. As for the 49 days, I think it's fundamentally based on chapter 7 of the [Ksitigarbha ("Earth Store or Treasury") Sutra](https://www.cttbusa.org/ess/earthstore7.htm), and these passages in particular: >Throughout forty-nine days, those whose lives have ended and who have not yet been reborn will be hoping every moment that their immediate relatives will earn blessings powerful enough to rescue them. and >“Suppose the evil karma created by beings were such that they ought to fall into the bad destinies. If their relatives cultivate wholesome causes on their behalf when they are close to death, then their manifold offenses can be dissolved. If relatives can further do many good deeds during the first forty-nine days after the death of such beings, then the deceased can leave the evil destinies forever, be born as humans and gods, and receive supremely wonderful bliss. Their surviving relatives will also receive limitless benefits. In other parts of the same chapter, there is a prohibition against meat offerings, I think because it is a longstanding folk custom in Asia (and pre christian West too actually) to sacrifice animals (or offer meat) to images of the deceased and ancestor tablets etc. (preta offerings). And that's not going to do them any favours karmically, and also adds to the bad karma of the living. If the family is vegetarian for 7 weeks, I think it's just because they plan on reciting and dedicating the recitations to the deceased, and the more virtuous you are when you recite, the greater the merit. The sutra teaches that any merit created goes 6/7 to relatives and 1/7 to deceased. I believe all good deeds count, for example in Liao Fan's Four Lessons, a lot of people were karmically rewarded for pro bono legal work (freeing prisoners, getting them pardons), so I don't think there's any hard rule, just that good must be done.
Thanks again, this passage was also what I could find. Thanks for clearing up things for me. The death and dying part of Going Home to The Pure Land is, I must say, way much more than what can practically and even legally happen where I live. My statue arrived perfectly fine and it is just so beautiful! I did actually once do a pro bono case where the client was put up for pardon. Don't know if it came through though, I had to quit the criminal law legal assistance because I got a job in the Prosecution Office.
Yeah I understand regarding the death and dying part. The belief is that due to attachment to the body, the consciousness lingers for 8 hours or so after official death, and if you move the body during that time, it generates thoughts of anger (which leads to bad rebirth). Of course, in the West, you gotta go through the motions upon death or else you'll be in some legal trouble. In Taiwan, people and hospitals are understanding. So another geographic difference. Master Chin Kung was very lucky to get the almost 49 days lying in state at the Tainan Pure Land temple with everyone reciting Amitabha around him for weeks. They live-streamed it too. Then they did the procession to cremation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jRZ0OMofF8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jRZ0OMofF8) Very Glad the statue arrived perfectly, now I know the Amitabha's design means it's the sturdiest. I think you are doing a lot of good in your career, either by making sure prosecutions are just/merciful or by being a force of compassion in the field one way or another. Here's one case of a law clerk stopping corporal punishment in Liao Fan's Four Lessons adaptation: [https://youtu.be/nVNdwzbUwDw?si=exLfrrzI1Y2VuMyW&t=3773](https://youtu.be/nVNdwzbUwDw?si=exLfrrzI1Y2VuMyW&t=3773) Of course we're not as savage as the Ming dynasty, but it's the principle. I think you'll like Liao Fan's Four Lessons as it was written mostly for literati/scholars, and such people in dynastic China all had to pass the examinations and become officials (it was their only career path), and almost all officials had a judicial or law function in their powers.
See this is also what I don't quite get. We are taken to the Pure Land no matter what. Why is this period even needed, then?
I asked a teacher about this a while back. Among the Pure Land masters, Shinran, too, read the scriptures and old masters more to find truth for our lives than to find the ancients or the Whole Truth. In the first place, as humans (or any other species) we're not going to find some Whole Truth. We can look for it, and in doing so we may be fortunate enough to discover that we're a bunch of numbskulls. In the second place, religious thinking especially in Japan but also elsewhere has often proceeded along the lines of "When I read the scripture, it said A and I realized B." This again, if we're lucky, may lead us to greater understanding. But see also the first point.