gingercatni wrote:I was just trying to keep it
bazzaman wrote:gingercatni wrote: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:
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.
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".
PeterB wrote:What a Buddha Rupa symbolises is what is important gingercatni.
Bonsai Doug wrote: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.
adeh wrote: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).
Users browsing this forum: Coyote and 2 guests