But, frankly, I think that Amida Buddha is a fiction much like the Angel Gabriel. I can appreciate him symbolically, but my Practice is not based on any such mythical creature (at least, I do not have need for that). It is centered on a (probably) historical Shakyamuni, who was a fellow like you and me, a human being of flesh and blood (although a pretty smart one).
I see your point. If, however, Amida Buddha (and all the other Buddhas mentioned) are viewed as manifestations of different aspects of THE Buddha, and Buddha is percieved as something within ones' self (as opposed to the idea of an external "god" concept,) or, as the texts themselves put it, "projections of one's OWN mind," then couldn't one say that Amida Buddha is just as "real" as any of us?
I'm not much into the "hocus pocus" of a lot of rituals, and "theology" leaves me cold; but there are spiritual principles in the practices of other forms of Buddhism that I can appreciate and sort of run through a "Zen filter," if that makes sense.
I see your point. If, however, Amida Buddha (and all the other Buddhas mentioned) are viewed as manifestations of different aspects of THE Buddha, and Buddha is percieved as something within ones' self (as opposed to the idea of an external "god" concept,) or, as the texts themselves put it, "projections of one's OWN mind," then couldn't one say that Amida Buddha is just as "real" as any of us?
I'm not much into the "hocus pocus" of a lot of rituals, and "theology" leaves me cold; but there are spiritual principles in the practices of other forms of Buddhism that I can appreciate and sort of run through a "Zen filter," if that makes sense.
Comment