• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who/What is Amitabha to you?

Everyone seems to have a different opinion on the reality of Amitabha Buddha.

To me
, Amitabha Buddha is the Dharmakaya, the Embodiment of Dharma, and the spiritual manifestation of Shakyamuni Buddha. He is the manifestation of Shakyamuni Buddha Himself.

So who or what is Amitabha to you? :D


Namo Amitabhaya!

:namaste


"A true follower of the Tathagata
foundeth not his trust upon austerities or rituals
but giving up the idea of self
relieth with his whole heart upon Amitabha,
which is the unbounded light of truth.
"


-- The Gospel of Buddha, LX
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I consider Amitabha to be the (current) Buddha for the Western Paradise. I don't venerate him above Shakyamuni, because our world is Samsara, and Shakyamuni is the current Buddha for Samsara. If 'I' am reborn into the Western Paradise, then it will be time for 'me' to venerate Amitabha foremost.

My school teaches that Siddhartha Gautama, and Amitabha, and Maitreya (forthcoming) and Many Treasures, and the rest are all emanations of the Eternal Buddha (as described in the Lotus Sutra). The Eternal Buddha (not an individual) is the unity of the trikaya; also known as the unborn and deathless, or (the easiest for me to envision) the Buddha-field.

The Lotus Sutra teaches us that this world is the Buddha's Pure Land, if we can only wake up. Nichiren teaches us that the difference lies in the minds and hearts of the people themselves; there are not two lands, pure and impure.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I don't know that I consider myself a Mahayana adherent, but it seems to me that ultimately Amithaba is important due to the motivation he inspires. The nature or even reality of his existence is unimportant IMO.
 
I don't know that I consider myself a Mahayana adherent, but it seems to me that ultimately Amithaba is important due to the motivation he inspires. The nature or even reality of his existence is unimportant IMO.

That is wonder and greatness of Amitabha Buddha to me; it does not matter whether He is real or not, because He is the Manifestation of Infinite Light. Thus, one who meditates on His Name and chants it receives the same idea of Pure Land, which is beyond all Names and Forms.

Whether one sees Pure Land as a real place, or others see Pure Land as a metaphor for the inner self to become a Boddhisattva, or whether one sees it merely as a metaphor for Nirvana, the Pure Land sutra is clarified with the immense beauty, tranquility and peace that Pure Land grants upon the one who desires to go to the Western Paradise.
 
Lol, pretty much that. :D

I'm an unorthodox Buddhist though. :)

Either that, or a HARDCORE PURELAND BUDDHIST!!

:thud:

I think we all are unorthodox Buddhists in some way or another... "the world is dead. the world is cold. I like meditation."

Forgive my tongue-in-cheek humour! :D
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Royal Falcon of God said:
Who is Amitabha to You?

Nobody.

Amitabha is a heretical doctrine. He was a king who renounced his throne, studied Buddhism, then became a Buddha, and then he created a realm called "Pure Land"?

Sorry. I don't think so.


.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Nobody.

Amitabha is a heretical doctrine. He was a king who renounced his throne, studied Buddhism, then became a Buddha, and then he created a realm called "Pure Land"?

Sorry. I don't think so.


.

Pureland is recognized as such for those who otherwise have difficulties practicing Dharma through "conventional" channels.

You are walking your dogma a tad too much. :puppy:

Try a cat. :bkcat:
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
To me Amitabha is what the Hindus call Brahman. Amitabha according to many traditions has manifested into the world of being many times, and even into other worlds prior to ours. What does manifesting mean to you Falcon?
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Pureland is recognized as such for those who otherwise have difficulties practicing Dharma through "conventional" channels.

No, I was referring to the actual celestial realm known as Pure Land. It is such an absurdity to believe that a man studied a religion, then became one of it's divine figures, and then created a celestial realm of paradise called Pure Land. This is not doctrine that is in line with the Buddhas teachings. He does not teach that Enlightenment can turn you into a god who can create paradises. It's absurd.

You are walking your dogma a tad too much. :puppy:

Try a cat. :bkcat:

Is there something necessarily wrong with being doctrinally correct? Or having a rational approach to what is agreeable to reason?

If you think I'm dogmatic, then you must think Buddha was an even more extreme dogmatist.

He was not the type to say "oh, everyone is right in their own way. Many paths lead to the same truth. Dharma can be interpreted in many ways!" Nope.
That's not him.

Buddha is the guy who made an entire discourse listing all the WRONG VIEWS, refuting them, and then chastising those who believed them. See the Samannaphala Sutta and the Brahmajala Sutta, haha!


.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No, I was referring to the actual celestial realm known as Pure Land. It is such an absurdity to believe that a man studied a religion, then became one of it's divine figures, and then created a celestial realm of paradise called Pure Land. This is not doctrine that is in line with the Buddhas teachings. He does not teach that Enlightenment can turn you into a god who can create paradises. It's absurd.

Doctrinally there is a degree of dissonance based on one's interpretation, yet upon mindful reflection this is directly symmetric with the Buddha's modus operandi. :meditate:


Is there something necessarily wrong with being doctrinally correct? Or having a rational approach to what is agreeable to reason?

If you think I'm dogmatic, then you must think Buddha was an even more extreme dogmatist.

He was not the type to say "oh, everyone is right in their own way. Many paths lead to the same truth. Dharma can be interpreted in many ways!" Nope.
That's not him.

Buddha is the guy who made an entire discourse listing all the WRONG VIEWS, refuting them, and then chastising those who believed them. See the Samannaphala Sutta and the Brahmajala Sutta, haha!


.

Not necessarily wrong Tathagata. Views are your own to express as you see fit of course. That said, I notice there is notable honesty present in the Brahmajala sutta right at the opening of The Perfect Net of which bears this testament right from the get go.

"Thus have I heard." -Brahmajala Sutta-

;)
 
To me Amitabha is what the Hindus call Brahman. Amitabha according to many traditions has manifested into the world of being many times, and even into other worlds prior to ours. What does manifesting mean to you Falcon?

To me, manifestation refers to the same spirit of how there have been Buddhas in the past, and Buddhas in the future. It is not that the Buddhas are the same person, but the Spirit of the Buddha, or the Spirit of the Enlightened One is made manifest in that particular Personage.

Every Buddha, to me, have Their Threefold Form, or Trikaya. Gautama is His Nirmanakaya; the Spirit of the Buddha on Earth is His Sambhogakaya, and Amitabha Buddha is His eternal form, the Metaphysical Form of Himself.

I know that some see Amitabha Buddha as a separate Buddha in another realm, but to me, Amitabha Buddha is the Spiritual Manifestation of Gautama Buddha.

Just like how there is Jesus, then the Christ, and then the Son of God. :)
 
No, I was referring to the actual celestial realm known as Pure Land. It is such an absurdity to believe that a man studied a religion, then became one of it's divine figures, and then created a celestial realm of paradise called Pure Land. This is not doctrine that is in line with the Buddhas teachings. He does not teach that Enlightenment can turn you into a god who can create paradises. It's absurd.

I do not think that this Pure Land doctrine is absurd if you can also take it to have metaphorical nature. After all, the Buddha has used metaphors in order to illustrate Dharmic concepts to the common people.

Millions and millions of people have received the benefit and have become better persons because of this Most Great Mantra for this Age of degradation.

He was not the type to say "oh, everyone is right in their own way. Many paths lead to the same truth. Dharma can be interpreted in many ways!" Nope.
That's not him.

Buddha is the guy who made an entire discourse listing all the WRONG VIEWS, refuting them, and then chastising those who believed them. See the Samannaphala Sutta and the Brahmajala Sutta, haha!

Have you read both the Longer and the Shorter Sukhavativyuha Sutra at all? This Pure Land doctrine is a doctrine of joy, of hope, of beauty and wonder for the layperson to be able to manifest the ideals of the Buddha through the easiest form of meditation.


"Shariputra, if there is a good man or good woman who heareth of Amitabha and holdeth His Name whether for one day, two days, three, four, five days, six days, as long as seven days with one mind unconfused, when this person neareth the end of life, before him will appear Amitabha and all the Assembly of Holy Ones. When the end cometh, his mind will not be utterly confused, and in Amitabha's Land of Utmost Happiness he will quickly be reborn. Shariputra, because I see this benefit, I speak these words; and, if living beings hear this teaching they should make the vow: I wish to born in that Land."

-- Gautama Buddha (Shorter Sukhavativyuha Sutra)


One does not need to become a Boddhisattva to come back; they can choose to stay in Pure Land, and cultivate the virtues of the Buddha Dharma for eternity. The Buddha Himself said that there are 84,000 paths to reach Enlightenment from His blessed mouth. And Pure Land says, that this particular dharma is the easiest for every person to practice, that even a mere child can take up this practice.

[youtube]NN8Q2hHPiLA[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN8Q2hHPiLA

A Pure Land teacher once said that the Name is like a paddle on the boat that quickly brings one to the Other Shore; while the other dharma paths require the Power of the Self (jiriki in Japanese), by letting go and entrusting oneself towards Amitabha (tariki), then Amida becomes the Oarsman who will carry us to the other side with effortless grace.
 

AfterGlow

Invisible Puffle
No, I was referring to the actual celestial realm known as Pure Land. It is such an absurdity to believe that a man studied a religion, then became one of it's divine figures, and then created a celestial realm of paradise called Pure Land. This is not doctrine that is in line with the Buddhas teachings. He does not teach that Enlightenment can turn you into a god who can create paradises. It's absurd.
It need not be absurd even if you take it literally. If I remember correctly, the story was that Amitabha was never a man but a "being from another planet in another universe", the same world as Tara came from. Speculatively speaking, it's not impossible that part of this alien species' life cycle is to metamorphose into a "spiritual" entity or being of pure consciousness. Since they'd embraced the Buddhadharma it would make sense that their new life state would reflect their dharmic beliefs.

I'm not saying I believe that though, just that it is possible.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm not saying I believe that though, just that it is possible.
A great many things are possible, however unlikely their probability remains.

In regards to the OP, it means absolutely nothing to me. Just out of curiosity though, why would my opinion of such an alleged being be considered worth mentioning? Why are my projections on the matter any more meaningful than that of anyone else? In theory, if such a being exists we will eventually recognize it as such. I'm not holding my breath.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Do you consider yourself a Mahayanist, Ymir? I seem to recall you mentioning that you are not a Buddhist.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Do you consider yourself a Mahayanist, Ymir? I seem to recall you mentioning that you are not a Buddhist.
As long as I remain polite in a sub-dir, it doesn't really matter, does it? Though I would never dream of calling myself a Buddhist there is a distinct overlap in some areas of our thinking.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
All right. But did I misunderstand what you mean then?

It jus seems weird to see you ask why your opinion about Amithaba matters when we have no good reason to expect you to even have one.
 
Top