1. ‘Pure Land is a short cut to nibbana (nirvana).’ Discuss.

2. ‘Pure Land Buddhism is so far removed from the teachings of the Buddha that it cannot really be regarded as Buddhism at all.’ Discuss.

3. To what extent are the goals of Zen and Pure Land similar?

4. To what extent is Pure Land a distinctive form of Mahayana Buddhism?

5. Assess the importance of Pure Land Buddhism for those seeking Nibbana (Nirvana).

6. ‘Pure Land Buddhism is just a way to encourage people to practise Buddhism.’ Discuss.

7. Answer – maybe! For the first objective – AO1 You will need to show awareness of the main features of Pure Land Buddhism, and understanding of the status of the Pure Lands. You could also show awareness of the concept of upaya. Perhaps mention that Mahayana Buddhism relies on upaya to explain how its teachings differ from that of the Buddha. An awareness of the origins of Pure Land, and differences between Pure Land schools would be relevant. For the second objective - AO2 You could argue that Pure Land is taught as a form of upaya to encourage people who may find other forms of Buddhism difficult to practise. The ease of the Pure Land practices could be cited as appropriate for a particular time and place, or group of people, to encourage them to start the path. The Pure Lands could be seen as an interim aim, again to encourage people and you could discuss whether this is any different from any Buddhist tradition if the underlying belief is that people must seek their own way. Perhaps there could also be a reference to whether for some Buddhists the Pure Lands are the ultimate aim, and whether this then means that the methods can no longer be seen as upaya.