amitabha buddha

[gingercatni]

I've just discovered that the indonesian Buddha I restored and put on my shrine is in fact Amitabha buddha, does it matter or should i replace it?

[meindzai]

Does it matter to you?

It's just an image.

-M

[gingercatni]

I was just trying to keep it as authentic as possible

[daverupa]

I was just trying to keep it

The problem.

[PeterB]

Of course its not a problem...

Keeping it authentic is essential, this isnt a zen- free- for- all forum.

What a Buddha Rupa symbolises is what is important gingercatni. A shell or flower or piece of coral will do as well if thats what works for you.
Amitabha Buddha has no obective existence, and if a form which symbolises your aspirations has that form and that works for you, I wouldnt worry too much about it.
It is authentic. The criterion isnt the thing in itself..its your reaction to it.

[adeh]

It's a really beautiful Buddha image, but how can you be sure its Amitabha? If it's the mudra, I've seen Tibetan paintings and japanese statues of Shayamuni with the right hand in the same mudra (the vitarkamudra...the exposition of the doctrine mudra).

[Bonsai Doug]

That statue is a wonderful Buddha - lots of character in the pose, weathering, patina, etc.
I believe anyone would be happy to display it on their altar.

[bazzaman]

,

[bodom]

If it inspires your practice then that is all that matters.

[PeterB]

I was just trying to keep it as authentic as possible

"Authentic" can have several connotations... e.g. "genuine", "real", "unfaked", "reliable". So is it a question of this being a genuine statue of Amithaba?... or is it the "reality" of Amitabha the question?
If the later, then this might be of interest:

Origins
The first known epigraphic evidence for Amitabha is the bottom part of a 2nd century statue which has been found in Govindo-Nagar, and is now at the Mathura Museum. The statue is dated to "the 28th year of the reign of Huvishka", that is, sometime in the later half of the 2nd century during the period of the Kushan Empire, and dedicated to "Amitabha Buddha" by a family of merchants.

The first known sutra mentioning Amitabha is the translation into Chinese of the Pratyutpanna Sutra by the Kushan monk Lokaksema around 180 CE. This work is said to be at the origin of Pure Land practice in China.

The appearance of such literature and sculptural remains at the end of the 2nd century suggests that the doctrine of Amitabha probably developed during the 1st and 2nd century CE.

Some scholars have pointed out the strong Central Asian connection surrounding the Buddha Amitabha, and a possible influence by the Iranian cult of Mithra. The Buddha Amitabha (literally meaning "Infinite radiance") with his Western paradisiacal "Pure Land" "seems to be understood as the Iranian god of light, equated with the sun" (Foltz, "Religions of the Silk Road"). The very notion of paradise is a Persian invention (Old Persian: "Para Daisa"), which may have been relayed by the Indo-Greeks or through the incursions of the Indo-Parthians in India.
source: http://www.buddhism-guide.com/buddhism/amitabha.htm

Just scholarly speculation of course, but maybe interesting. "Mithraism" was a close contender with Christianity at one time. If the emporer Julian had prevailed, we would have been bathed in the "Blood of the Bull" instead of the "Blood of the Lamb".

This is intended to be helpful is it ?

[Mawkish1983]

To share my thoughts and experiences:

I have two statues on my shrine. One is small and made out of resin, bought from a Buddhist meditation centre. The other is larger and made from plastic; the manufacturers intended it to be a home decoration. They both are useful for me.

The first I bought after attending a meditation course and first deciding I would start practicing Buddhism. I was new, hadn't read much literature and didn't know about the differences between the Buddhist schools. It is of the medicine Buddha. When I decided to follow Theravada I chose to keep it as a reminder that just as I once knew very little, I still know very little. I find it useful to control that ego.

The other statue was bought by my wife and marked the point that she accepted I was practicing Buddhism. I keep it as a reminder that I must balance my household responsibilities with my personal 'spiritual' (don't like that word) goals. It reminds me I'm part of a larger system, and decisions I make affect lots of other people.

The second statue is of Amitabha. Both statues portray Mahayana figures, but they are both useful for my practice.

[phil]

My favourite Buddha statue isn't a Buddha at all, it's a carving of a rice god from a mountain tribe in the Philippines. (They are placed above paddies to protect the growing rice.) But it sits in front of me when I meditate because I feel it expresses the qualities that can be developed through Buddhist practice, especially patience and friendliness.

[Ben]

What a Buddha Rupa symbolises is what is important gingercatni.

Indeed!

[gingercatni]

That statue is a wonderful Buddha - lots of character in the pose, weathering, patina, etc.
I believe anyone would be happy to display it on their altar.

Thankyou! Yes I really do like this Buddha image, when I look at it I'm instantly at peace. I have restored this Buddha myself which makes it extra special when I perform puja each day, I got it from an antique dealer for next to nothing given that statues around this size cost anything between £300 -£1000 I suspect the dealer was about to scrap it, here's some pics through the restoration it had holes throughout which ar now gone!

[gingercatni]

It's a really beautiful Buddha image, but how can you be sure its Amitabha? If it's the mudra, I've seen Tibetan paintings and japanese statues of Shayamuni with the right hand in the same mudra (the vitarkamudra...the exposition of the doctrine mudra).

Hi

It is based on an image at Borobudur although amitabha and in fact all Buddha images use a range of mudra's But it doesn't really matter I like it and for my practice it can be the Buddha I want it to represent.