You clearly know nothing of Pure Land doctrine (Or how to spell deity.). Amitābha is much more than just some dead or fictional monk, he’s presented as an extant spiritual entity who lives in a place that has all the aspects of a Heaven, and intercedes for those who call on his name, when they die, that they may more easily attain enlightenment under his direct tutelage. That’s not just some monk. Slink off back to whichever shitty freshman CompRelig class.your biased readings of religions were gleaned from, and ask the TA for your course credit back.
Various incarnations or Avatars of the Buddha are venerated and are known to be especially useful to pay respect to to speed up the eventual road to enlightenment. Amitābha was a monk who was an incarnation of Buddha and is supposed to be especially powerful in assisting you along the path. He is venerated and people ask him for help but he is not worshipped in the same way that Hindu’s worship Brahma for example.
I’m glad you asked! First of all, we have to note that in previous eras, political theocracy was not necessarily more prevalent in Islam than in other religions. The Byzantine Empire, the Carolingian theocracy, the Heavenly Kingdom in the Taiping Rebellion, and several other ancient and medieval states are generally counted as theocratic. Arguably the closest thing to a non-Islamic theocracy in the modern world are the “atheocracies” or “ideologocracies” of China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union, in which a cadre of committed believers in a sociopolitical doctrine (including an official position on correct opinions regarding religion) control the country in accordance with their vision of universally shared aspiration for ideological purity. (As you noted in comparing Islamist theocrats with “diehard communists” a few posts back.)
The history of how medieval Christian empires and states transitioned into primarily secular governments via nationalist movements in the early modern and modern period is too long and, I hope, too familiar in its general outlines to go over in detail here. What’s not often remembered is that the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and of the European colonial empires involved a lot of the same sort of nationalist and secularist impetus. The new Republic of Turkey government became (and has primarily remained) secular; the Pahlavi reign in Iran emphasized secularism and modernization, as did the neo-Ba’ath regimes in Iraq and Syria and the Pakistan People’s Party; the Indonesian independence movement established a secular government; the Wafd Party in Egypt did the same before being suppressed by the rulers and eventually replaced with the secular-nationalist authoritarianism of Nasser; and so on and so forth.
The question is, why did the political pendulum swing back towards theocracy and fundamentalism in the mid- to late 20th century in so much of the Muslim world? It’s way too simplistic to just answer “because they’re Muslim”, because the nationalists and secularists that the theocrats were opposing were also Muslim.
In fact, the political Islamism of the late 20th century largely seems to resemble political socialism/communism in the early 20th century: originally anti-elitist but often co-opted by strong autocratic rulers to form the state machinery of a quasi-dictatorship, deeply suspicious of Western bourgeois (and colonial) culture, controlled by authoritarian extremists who encouraged fanatical social movements as a way of deflecting public attention from economic and human-rights issues.
I can go on at a less ungodly hour if there’s interest, but are you at least beginning to get an idea of how inadequate it is to try to explain the resurgence of Islamist political theocracy with simplistic essentialist arguments along the lines of “Muhammad was a warlord”?
Nobody’s denying that there are a lot of bad and dangerous things happening in the modern Muslim world, but they are really complicated bad and dangerous things with root causes literally all over the map and in all aspects of history. You can’t plausibly come anywhere close to explaining them by just insisting “Islam is bad”.
You raise some interesting points I admit. However can you honestly say that there is not more scriptural justification for theocracy in Islam than in other religions? My understanding is that the explicit role of religious scholars in the law system is very clearly defined in Islam. This then directly leads to more incidents of islam majority countries becoming political theocracies. Other religions such as Christianity might define moral laws but they don’t explicitly say it should be religious leaders who are in charge of enforcing those laws. And even in your “secular” examples such as Indonesia Apostasy is a crime punishable by jail time.
Turkey is the only majority muslim state that I would actually put in the secular category. All the rest of them impose shariah to greater or lesser degrees even if they are officially secular. For one thing I don’t believe you can truly call any country where its a crime to convert from Islam secular.
Veneration is a weasel word for worship in this case. They chant his name, they believe he’s still alive and will personally guide them in the next life, he lives in a fucking Big Rock Candy Paradise with wishing trees- sure, keep up the polite fiction he’s just viewed as a monk…
…and no, he was not an incarnation of the Buddha (which is usually understood to mean Gautama Buddha)
Coremelt missed it the first time around: Vatican City, age of consent raised from 12 to 18 in 2013.
Veneration is a more accurate word than worship for the respect shown to dead famous monks or incarnations of Buddha. Just like in Catholicism they do not worship Saints, they venerate them. And “a Buddha” is someone that achieves enlightenment from their own insight rather than learning from the dharma, and then goes on to teach others. It’s a pretty moot point if all incarnations of Buddha are the “same one” or not when Anatta, realisation of the nature of not-self is one of the insights leading to enlightenment.
Veneration is what you do to sokushinbutsu. How Amitābha is treated is worship.
Catholic saints (and there are Buddhist saints too) are intercessionary with the Heavenly deity. Amitābha is not treated the same as a saint in Pure Land. Catholics hope to go to Heaven to join with God, not St Jude. Amidists hope to go to the Pure Land to be enlightened by Amitābha personally. He fulfils the role of deity in this equation, not saint. It’s his own, personal Heaven they hope to partake in.
You didn’t say “a Buddha”, you said “Buddha”. So don’t try and backpedal so hard, your wheels are coming off…
Son, don’t try and teach me how to suck eggs, and don’t try and teach me your own piss-poor understanding of Buddhist doctrine. Amitābha was not an incarnation of Gautama, Just be wrong. Just stand there in your wrongness and be wrong and get used to it.
I’m sure you can find sources claiming he was not an incarnation of Gautama, I can find sources where he is an incarnation of Gautama. Heres one:
Pure Land Buddhism is still counted as a part of Mahayana buddhism and so does not believe in deities in the same sense that Hinduism does. Amitabha was once a human and created the pure land through his act of enlightenment. He is a teacher and intermediary, not an actual god. The goal of Pure Land buddhism is not to reach and stay in Sukhavati, thats just a stepping stone to full enlightenment.
“You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book” sure, real convincing.
Nobody’s said it isn’t.
…in the same sense that “in the same sense” is a weasel phrase…
So was Jesus, what’s your point.
I already told you, I don’t need a lesson in Buddhist doctrine from someone whose only education in the religion seems to comes from Google book searches.
Naah, he’s better than a god - for example, gods and saints just live in the Heaven he personally created by his own distilled awesomeness.
Once again, why are you repeating things at me that you can tell, by my own previous posts, I already know? This distinction does nothing to negate the fact that Amidists treat Amitābha as a supernatural being, and that they way they treat him is indistinguishable from worship to all non-weasels.
You can move the goalposts, all while backpedalling your unicycle, as much as you like, but your initial wrongheaded statement was
[QUOTE=coremelt]
Buddhists don’t worship, because there is no supernatural being to worship in buddhism
[/QUOTE]
and that’s just wrong. Amitābha in Pure land is a supernatural being, ascribed supernatural powers, residing in a supernatural Paradise, and the Amidist attitude to him is as worshipful as any Catholic’s is to Mary (Oh, sorry - that’s “veneration” in Weaseltongue, mate)
Change the “false” to “true” and it should work.
Religion in a nutshell.
I can see the source. It’s Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities.
Curiously, access to this source hasn’t help corement with the spelling of deity.
Thanks. I see they, like coremelt, have things ass-backwards as to which Buddha is the incarnation of which…
What are we arguing about?
Whether Chess is the invention of the devil, I think.
In coremelt’s defense (modest, since IMHO he’s being schooled in this discussion), he does live in Thailand and probably has a decent amount of contant with Buddists (sp) which he feels (and probably has) helped him understand their beliefs…
Of course, I lived 4 years in the Arabian Gulf, so I understand the Muslim faith…eh, not so much, or at least not as well as coremelt seems to feel he does.
It is a puzzlement.
Press on, I find the information being presented fascinating.
I believe that it is played in Purgatory. :dubious: