Are Shakyamuni Buddha, Rulai Buddha, and Amitabha Buddha the same Buddha?
I remember a friend who once said without joke that in today's society, what really "carries forward" Buddhism is not a monk or an association, but a TV series - "Journey to the West". Jokes are jokes, but there is still a certain truth in what is said, it is the classic "Journey to the West" that unconsciously makes the title of "Buddha" deeply rooted in the hearts of the people.
When we think of "Buddha", the first thing that comes to mind is undoubtedly these three titles, namely "Shakyamuni Buddha", "Rulai Buddha" and "Amitabha Buddha". In our impression, these three different titles should refer to the same Buddha, and they are the absolute big men in the Buddha's door, so is this really the case? Are Shakyamuni Buddha, Rulai Buddha, and Amitabha Buddha the same "Buddha"? Today, let's take a look at this problem.
First, let's look at "Shakyamuni Buddha." "Shakyamuni Buddha", this is the honorific title for Shakyamuni. Shakyamuni, whose original name was Gautama Siddhartha, was a Kapilava in ancient India, who was originally the prince of the Kapilavas and later founded Buddhism in pursuit of liberation from "birth, old age, sickness and death"; in other words, Gautama Siddhartha was the founder of Buddhism.
So, since Gautama Siddhartha, who has a name and a surname, why is he called "Shakyamuni"? What does "Shakyamuni" mean here? In fact, this question is not complicated at all, the so-called "Shakya", that is because Gautama Siddhartha is a "Shakya" person, which is the same as our Chinese "Han", "Manchu", "Miao", etc., and "Muni" means "saint", so "Shakyamuni" means "sage of the Shakya tribe", which is obviously a tribute to Gautama Siddhartha.
Next, let's look at the "Buddha." In Journey to the West, the top and top character is naturally the Buddha of Rulai, so is this Buddha of Rulai the founder of Buddhism, Gautama Siddhartha, that is, "Shakyamuni Buddha"? Obviously, the impression given to us is indeed like this, but in fact, there is a difference between "Rulai Buddha" and "Shakyamuni Buddha".
The word "Rulai", which is translated from Sanskrit, means "true as", that is, "the true state of all Dharma (things)". The Buddhist scriptures say that "Rulai" means "as it is", it is a common term, which can be used as a synonym for "Buddha", such as: we can call "Shakyamuni Buddha" "Shakyamuni Rulai", we can call "Amitabha Buddha" "Amitabha Buddha Rulai" and so on.
Finally, let's look at "A(ē)Midas Buddha". In a sense, the popularity of "Amitabha Buddha" is higher than any "Buddha", because these four words are the mantra of people in Buddhism, such as Tang monks, or other monks, who have to say a sentence from time to time - "Amitabha Buddha".
So, which Buddha is this "Amitabha Buddha"? If "Shakyamuni Buddha" is the "Buddha" of this world, then "Amitabha Buddha" is the "Buddha" of that (other) world. The so-called "Amitabha" means "immeasurable", "immeasurable light", "immeasurable life", so "Amitabha" is also called "immeasurable Buddha", "immeasurable light Buddha" or "immeasurable life Buddha".
In summary, we can summarize the following points:
First, Shakyamuni Buddha, Rulai Buddha, and Amitabha Buddha, these three are not the same "Buddha";
Second, Shakyamuni Buddha is a real historical figure, namely the founder of Buddhism, Gautama Siddhartha, while Rulai Buddha and Amitabha Buddha can be said to be "Buddhas" in faith;
Third, Rulai Buddha is a common noun, both Shakyamuni Buddha and Amitabha Buddha can be called "Rulai", but Shakyamuni Buddha and Amitabha Buddha are both proper nouns, and the object of reference is very clear.
Well, the above is Shakyamuni Buddha, Rulai Buddha, Amitabha Buddha, the difference and connection between the three, dear friends, do you have any different views on this issue? Come and leave a message to discuss!
Welcome to pay attention to the new chapter of culture, thank you for being so beautiful and pay attention to me!