Talk:Amitabha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Amitabha, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

1 Good Question
2 Why not a Bodhisattva
3 Amitabha and Mithraism
4 Ikko Ikki

[edit] Good Question

In response to the below question, I have to simply say, I really don't know. I have no authority to answer this question, as I am but a layman, and not so well educated on the finer points of Buddhism as I'd like to be, but perhaps I can shed some possible light on this problem.

I suppose we may have a sort of vertical ladder mindset when it comes to placing Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in a sort of power structure. I believe that thinking in this dichotomy may be fundamentally wrong. There really is no difference between a Bodhisattva, a Buddha, and for that matter, a sentient being. At least, I come to this conclusion on based on my personal interpretation of the dharma.

Still, being that we live in the real world, we linguistically define and separate Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. I will address this matter in just a moment, but let me talk about that particular vow. If the vow does in fact say that Amitabha forestalls perfect enlightenment until all beings are saved in the Western paradise, then I can see where the paradox comes from. However, it's been a long time since I read the Amitabha sutras, and I can't remember if the vow was to build a place where people could easily reach enlightenment, or to actually enlighten everyone through those means. If it were the former, it could mean that he has fulfilled that vow. If it is in fact the latter, as you stated, then Amitabha would join the host of hundreds of other popular Bodhisattvas who have made similar vows. In my personal opinion, I think it may be the pure heart and intention behind making the vow, not neccessarily the completion of a certain task.

Now, for the fun part. I think if we look at the name Amitabha itself, the Sanskrit meaning something like boundless, infinite light - then I think the implication here is Buddhahood. In the Chinese name, the character "Fo" is present, meaning "Buddha". That character does not appear in the names of deities who are typically assigned the role of Bodhisattva, but it does also appear in the Chinese translations of Shakyamuni and Maitreya, who are Buddhas. Phew. Basically, I guess, there is no easy answer. Everything is, and is not, everything else. It's really quite Buddhistic, actually!Iluvchineselit 06:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why not a Bodhisattva

Why is Amitabha not regarded to be a Bodhisattva, since according to the article he promises not to achieve supreme perfect enlightenment until he has saved all sentient beings in his paradise. I thought that's by definition a Bodhisattva? Thanxs for answering gugganij 20:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The real reason that Amitabha is not regarded as a Bodhisattva is that the article's characterization of the 48 vows is wrong. According to the sutra, Amitabha has fulfilled all 48 vows, and accordingly has achieved supreme perfect enlightenment (anuttarasamyaksambodhi). The text should read something like "until all beings can, by aspiration to be reborn there, achieve birth in his Pure Land". RandomCritic 03:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amitabha and Mithraism

I removed the below comments (which were what were left after I edited out some POV and irrelevancies):

Some scholars have claimed a connection between the Iranian cult of Mithra and Buddha Amitabha. Richard C. Foltz, in "Religions of the Silk Road" claims that Amitabha "seems to be understood as the Iranian god of light, equated with the sun".

But even after editing, I can't see the relevance to the article, and I'm not even sure Foltz has been accurately quoted. The connection is in any case purely speculative, and it's not even clear what it means historically: did Mithra-worshipping Iranians accept Amitabha as a substitute for Mithra? Did they endow Amitabha with Mithra-like qualities? What is actually being claimed?

Leaving aside the question of whether it's fair to call Mithra a "solar deity", it is very clear that Amitabha is not one. It is true that the name Amitabha means "unlimited light", but the association between good deities, wisdom, and light is a common one, capable of being made independently by different peoples, and implies nothing about a historical relationship.

More to the point, there is no written or archaeological evidence to indicate that anything about Amitabha was borrowed from a non-Buddhist source; the initial evidences for belief in Amitabha come from within India. The name Amitabha is certainly not Iranian. The appearance of Amitabha follows other Buddhist iconography, and while that certainly may have some extra-Indian influences they are more likely Greek than Iranian. The functions of Amitabha are only intelligible in a Buddhist setting, and owe nothing to any type of Iranian religion. What, then, is left for Mithra to supply? RandomCritic 13:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)