Chanting in Amitabha name :(

[Arabic Buddhist]

Hello dharma friends

Someone of my friend from other buddhist school said to me :
Amitabha is not a buddha . Buddha is free from ego . But your buddha is not free from ego . I said why ?
He said because he will not help you until you chant in his name . Like some one said kiss my hand and i will help you .

I have no word to answer him . can someone give me a good answer for him .

[Son of Buddha]

But your buddha is not free from ego . I said why ?
He said because he will not help you until you chant in his name . Like some one said kiss my hand and i will help you .

I have no word to answer him . can someone give me a good answer for him .

The Buddha and Bodhisattvas will help people even if you do not chant his name.
However the Buddha does not force people to come over to his house(pureland) to hang out,
The Buddha sends out his invitation(18th vow) to come over and hang out,acceptance of the 18th vow(invitation) is you knocking on the door to be let in.

The door to the pureland is always open however the Buddha does not beat you up and drag you off the street and force you to come into his house(pureland).

Ultimately the invitation has always been open and it our choice wether we accept the invitation or not.

Peace and Love.

[Admin_PC]

Someone of my friend from other buddhist school said to me :
Amitabha is not a buddha . Buddha is free from ego . But your buddha is not free from ego . I said why ?
He said because he will not help you until you chant in his name . Like some one said kiss my hand and i will help you .

I have no word to answer him . can someone give me a good answer for him .

Typically, Shakyamuni Buddha did not offer teachings unless asked (often at least 3 times), would you say Shakyamuni was not free from ego either?

[Arabic Buddhist]

Thank you friends

[Rakz]

My advice is not worry what ignorant people have to say. Just have faith and practice with determination.

[lobster]

I have no word to answer him

'Silence too is an answer', is what the Sufi Bodhis say . . .
I often play Amitabha mantra. Is it helpful? Sure. Is Amitaba less egoic than [insert ego of choice] maybe, maybe not.

namo amitabha

[Nicholas Weeks]

Amitabha Buddha, like all buddhas is the perfect healer of all pain. There are many remedies he gives to all different kinds of beings for relief from pain.

One therapy is thinking a lot about buddha by recalling his name. The patient has to take the pill or practice the therapy the doctor prescribes. Ego has nothing to do with it.

[Konchog1]

I think it's because it's necessary to create the karmic connection so he can help you. It has nothing to do with what he wants.

[Arabic Buddhist]

Thank you friends for your wonderful answers

[Nosta]

I think it's because it's necessary to create the karmic connection so he can help you. It has nothing to do with what he wants.

I think thats the answer.

One must create a connection, and chanting His name is the answer. He will not be able to help you if you dont know him and even less if you dont want that (maybe you are Christian for example).

While saying his name you are recognizing the need to reborn there.

[abhinavmosesben]

Typically, Shakyamuni Buddha did not offer teachings unless asked (often at least 3 times), would you say Shakyamuni was not free from ego either?[/quote]

Buddha preached first 5 monks when he discovered the truth and then said to everyone to spread the dhamma (truth). Did he asked?

. Buddha preached the dhamma without even asked. His teachings are qualified as Ehi-Passiko meaning to come and see not to come and believe.
With metta.

[abhinavmosesben]

Typically, Shakyamuni Buddha did not offer teachings unless asked (often at least 3 times), would you say Shakyamuni was not free from ego either?

Buddha preached first 5 monks when he discovered the truth and then said to everyone to spread the dhamma (truth). Did he asked?

. Buddha preached the dhamma without even asked. His teachings are qualified as Ehi-Passiko meaning to come and see not to come and believe. Buddha never recited Mantras to gain enlightenment. Buddha never went to Amitabha even to gain enlightenment. Buddha is the one who enlightened himself and asks us to do the same without depending on any external factors. In Mahaparibanna sutta Buddha says " Be a light unto yourself" and "Do not depend upon any external factors". He also says "Those who will be light unto themselves without depending upon any external factors will be my true followers". Thanks
With metta.

[Admin_PC]

Typically, Shakyamuni Buddha did not offer teachings unless asked (often at least 3 times), would you say Shakyamuni was not free from ego either?

Buddha preached first 5 monks when he discovered the truth and then said to everyone to spread the dhamma (truth). Did he asked?

. Buddha preached the dhamma without even asked. His teachings are qualified as Ehi-Passiko meaning to come and see not to come and believe.
With metta.

EDIT: Yes, he was asked! By Brahma Sahampati. Read: V 1:4-7, M 1:169, S 1:136-138
See: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... itated.pdf
Also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Do you really want me to quote you every time someone had to ask Shakyamuni more than twice an answer to their question? I think you can open up a random page in any of the Nikayas and find an example of this, so let's not waste my time. If you really are so stubborn as to refuse to acknowledge that many people had to ask Shakyamuni Buddha their question multiple times, just say so and I'll try to have patience to accommodate you, but I'll have to wonder if you've ever read a single Nikaya.

How about the qualifications for Right Speech?

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

— AN 5.198

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them."

Speak only endearing speech,
speech that is welcomed.
Speech when it brings no evil
to others
is pleasant.

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."

If someone doesn't ask for help, then it may not be the right time. Has nothing to do with ego.

Furthermore, there are prohibitions about teaching Dhamma to just anybody:

"I will not teach Dhamma to someone who is not sick but who:

— has an umbrella; a wooden stick (club); weapon in their hand.

— is wearing (wooden-soled) sandals/shoes; is in a vehicle; is on a bed (or couch); is sitting clasping the knees; has a head wrapping (turban); whose head is covered; who is sitting on a seat while I am sitting on the ground; who is sitting on a high seat while I am sitting on a low seat; who is sitting while I am standing; who is walking in front of me while I am walking behind; who is walking on a pathway while I am walking beside the pathway." (Sekhiya 57-72; See BMC pp.505-508)

"If a bhikkhu teaches Dhamma to an unordained person (one who is not a bhikkhu), repeating it together word by word, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 4; Nv p.14)

"When in inhabited areas, I will... wear the under and upper robe properly; be properly covered; go well restrained as to my movements; keep my eyes looking down; sit with little sound [of voice]."

Please do more research on your own tradition before you criticize (or support the criticism) of the traditions of others...

[yan kong]

Typically, Shakyamuni Buddha did not offer teachings unless asked (often at least 3 times), would you say Shakyamuni was not free from ego either?

Buddha preached first 5 monks when he discovered the truth and then said to everyone to spread the dhamma (truth). Did he asked?

. Buddha preached the dhamma without even asked. His teachings are qualified as Ehi-Passiko meaning to come and see not to come and believe. Buddha never recited Mantras to gain enlightenment. Buddha never went to Amitabha even to gain enlightenment. Buddha is the one who enlightened himself and asks us to do the same without depending on any external factors. In Mahaparibanna sutta Buddha says " Be a light unto yourself" and "Do not depend upon any external factors". He also says "Those who will be light unto themselves without depending upon any external factors will be my true followers". Thanks
With metta.

Right, so cut rebirth, karma, the six realms. All belief.

[Admin_PC]

Buddha never recited Mantras to gain enlightenment.

Nembutsu = "Mindfulness of the Buddha", it is not a mantra.
Buddha recommended "Mindfulness of the Buddah" to Mahanama (Mahaanaama) in Anguttara Nikaya 11.12, 11.13; plus AN 8.25 (these are AccessToInsight numbering, not PTS numbering).

Buddha never went to Amitabha even to gain enlightenment.

No, but the Buddha did advise his followers to take refuge in him, a Buddha - especially faith followers.
Read the Candima Sutta SN 02.009.

Buddha is the one who enlightened himself and asks us to do the same without depending on any external factors. In Mahaparibanna sutta Buddha says " Be a light unto yourself" and "Do not depend upon any external factors".

Actually he doesn't, he says take the Dhamma as a guide. Followers of the Buddha cannot enlighten themselves, they need teaching, only SammaSam Buddhas can enlighten themselves.

Again, please do more research into your own school's teaching before you criticize other schools. You don't have much understanding of Theravada and you REALLY don't have any understanding of Mahayana & Pure Land - it is really obvious. For your own sake, please do more research and keep your opinions to yourself before you embarrass yourself any further.

[yan kong]

[abhinavmosesben]

No, but the Buddha did advise his followers to take refuge in him, a Buddha - especially faith followers.
Read the Candima Sutta SN 02.009.

You said that people went to the Buddha for refuge. BUT Now the Buddha is dead. Should we go to his refuge? No , but to his dhamma because he is already dead and cannot help us. Atleast apply some common sense. . Even the Amitabaha Buddha is also dead as no being can live for eternity and every person is subject to death. Even if he is alive somewhere in the cosmos then this contradicts the Buddha's own words.

Buddha says

" Neither in sky nor surrounding by sea,
nor by dwelling in a mountain cave,
nowhere is found that place in earth
where one’s by death not overcome."

Dhammapadda verse 128

Should I not consider your Amitabha Buddha as a dead being?


You said in

Candima Sutta SN 02.009. Buddha asks his followers to take refuge in him.

That sutta is awesome.

If you have read such suttas then you should know the other part too. Ananda asked this question to the Blessed Lord Buddha.

You read the half portion and the other half portion you forget. These were the very final words of Buddha.

In Parinibanna sutta Ananda asks "who shall be our refuge when thou art gone?"

Buddha replies
Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge? When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge. Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they have the desire to learn.
Mahaparinibbana Sutta 2:33-35

Cleary we and the Dhamma are our refuge now. Though in ceremonies we take refuge in Triple Gem.
You just read the half portion. Better read the full version. Namo Buddhay!!! With Metta and Karuna.

[Rakz]

Buddhas never die in Mahayana

[Admin_PC]

You said that people went to the Buddha for refuge. BUT Now the Buddha is dead. Should we go to his refuge? No , but to his dhamma because he is already dead and cannot help us.

You are not a Buddhist.
The 3 refuges are required for Buddhism, the Buddha being the first, the Dhamma being the second.
You are really very ignorant of the school you claim is the only true school.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Just as an FYI:

Then Ven. Anuradha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and... said to me, 'Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

"When this was said, I said to them, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

"When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left.

"Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'"

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

So your statements about the death of the Tathagata go against his own words.

Atleast apply some common sense. .

You have displayed absolutely zero capacity for common sense.
I'm teaching you your own Pali canon.

Even the Amitabaha Buddha is also dead as no being can live for eternity and every person is subject to death.

I told you to stick to your own school, you're making yourself look more ignorant by the moment. So many ways to debate this.... I'll just leave it at: you are an annihilation-ist icchantika who has no clue what any school of Buddhism teaches, regardless of Theravada or Mahayana. You haven't displayed a working knowledge of your own doctrine, so there's no point in debating Mahayana doctrine with you.

Even if he is alive somewhere in the cosmos then this contradicts the Buddha's own words.

This is untrue, even in the Pali canon there are many beings that live for many eons.

The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
...
The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
...
The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
...
The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing

"That which among men is fifty years, Visakha, is one night and day of the devas of the Four Great Kings, their month has thirty of those days, their year twelve of those months; the lifespan of the devas of the Four Great Kings is five hundred of those heavenly years. Now here a certain woman or man, having entered on the Uposatha undertaken with its eight practices, at the break up of the body, after death, may arise to fellowship with the devas of the Four Great Kings — such a thing indeed is known, Visakha. It was in connection with this that I have said: Miserable is kingship over men compared with heavenly bliss.

"That which among men is a hundred years, Visakha, is one night and day of the devas of the Thirty-three, their month has thirty of those days, their year twelve of those months; the lifespan of the devas of the Thirty-three is one thousand of those heavenly years. Now here a certain woman or man, having entered on the Uposatha undertaken with the eight practices, at the break up of the body, after death, may arise to fellowship with the devas of the Thirty-three — such a thing indeed is known, Visakha. It was in connection with this that I have said: Miserable is kingship over men compared with heavenly bliss.

"That which among men is two hundred years, Visakha, is one night and day of the Yama devas, their month has thirty of those days, their year twelve of those months; the lifespan of the Yama devas is two thousand of those heavenly years. Now here a certain woman or man, having entered on the Uposatha undertaken with the eight practices, at the break-up of the body, after death, may arise to fellowship with the Yama devas — such a thing indeed is known, Visakha. It was in connection with this that I have said: Miserable is kingship over men compared with heavenly bliss.

"That which among men is four hundred years, Visakha, is one night and day of the Tusita devas, their month has thirty of those days, their year twelve of those months; the lifespan of the Tusita devas is four thousand of those heavenly years. Now here a certain woman or man, having entered on the Uposatha undertaken with the eight practices, at the break up of the body, after death, may arise to fellowship with the Tusita devas — such a thing indeed is known, Visakha. It was in connection with this that I have said: Miserable is kingship over men compared with heavenly bliss.

"That which among men is eight hundred years, Visakha, is one night and day of the Nimmanarati devas, their month has thirty of those days, their year twelve of those months; the lifespan of the Nimmanarati devas is eight thousand of those heavenly years. Now here a certain woman or man, having entered on the Uposatha undertaken with the eight practices, at the break up of the body, after death may arise to fellowship with the Nimmanarati devas — such a thing indeed is known, Visakha. It was in connection with this that I have said: Miserable is kingship over men compared with heavenly bliss.

"That which among men is sixteen hundred years, Visakha, is one night and day of the Paranimmitavasavatti devas, their month has thirty of those days, their year twelve of those months; the lifespan of the Paranimmitavasavatti devas is sixteen thousand of those heavenly years. Now here a certain woman or man, having entered on the Uposatha undertaken with the eight practices, at the break up of the body, after death, may arise to fellowship with the Paranimmitavasavatti devas — such a thing indeed is known, Visakha. It was in connection with this that I have said: Miserable is kingship over men compared with heavenly bliss.

Besides, you're doing a perfectly good job of contradicting the Buddha's own words as it is.

Buddha says
" Neither in sky nor surrounding by sea,
nor by dwelling in a mountain cave,
nowhere is found that place in earth
where one’s by death not overcome."

Dhammapadda verse 128

Wow, you read one verse of the Dhammapadda but missed everything else in Buddhism!
Congratulations! You're ignorant!

Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.
Let them show their conviction.
Perceiving trouble, O Brahma,
I did not tell people the refined,
sublime Dhamma.

Even Shakyamuni Buddha wanted his followers to show some conviction....

Should I not consider your Amitabha Buddha as a dead being?

Let me quote that again for you:

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."

Please, go back and read your canon before you type.
I'm not even going to debate Mahayana with you if you can't even comprehend the Pali Canon.

You read the half portion and the other half portion you forget.

Apparently, you've forgotten more than 75% of that sutta, except for the one quote that you take out of context to support your position...

In Parinibanna sutta Ananda asks "who shall be our refuge when thou art gone?"

Buddha replies
Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge? When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge. Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they have the desire to learn.
Mahaparinibbana Sutta 2:33-35

Cleary we and the Dhamma are our refuge now. Though in ceremonies we take refuge in Triple Gem.
You just read the half portion. Better read the full version. Namo Buddhay!!! With Metta and Karuna.

Arrogant and ignorant is a bad combination for you
"Namo Buddhay!!!" after you just said no point in taking refuge in the Buddha?
Tell me if there's no point in taking refuge in the Buddha, why would ALL of the schools of Buddhism preserve the tradition?
Get out of here with that patronizing & dishonest wish for Metta & Karuna.
I implore you to use some common sense....
I better type this slow so you can understand.... I hope you can read it...

Heavenly songs are sung in the sky, in homage to the Tathagata. But it is not to this extent that a Tathagata is worshipped, honored, respected, venerated, or paid homage to. Rather, the monk, nun, male lay follower, or female lay follower who keeps practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, who keeps practicing masterfully, who lives in accordance with the Dhamma: that is the person who worships, honors, respects, venerates, & pays homage to the Tathagata with the highest homage. So you should train yourselves: 'We will keep practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, we will keep practicing masterfully, we will live in accordance with the Dhamma.' That's how you should train yourselves."

So he actually asks that he be worshiped, honored, respected, venerated, and paid homage to after his death....

Vasettha, all of you, though of different birth, name, clan and family, who have gone forth from the household life into homelessness, if you are asked who you are, should reply: "We are ascetics, followers of the Sakyan." He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: "I am a true son of Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma." Why is that? Because, Vasetta, this designates the Tathagata: "The Body of Dhamma", ... or "Become Dhamma""

And because you seem to have problems with reading comprehension, let me spell this out for you:
Tathagata = the Buddha
The Buddha = the Body of Dhamma....
The Buddha asked that he be worshiped by those practicing the Dhamma...
So that's why the followers of the Buddha, take refuge in the Dhamma and the Buddha after he is gone...

[wisdom]

No matter what, the Buddha cannot force you to be enlightened. For that, you must make an effort and do it yourself, for yourself and for all sentient beings. Therefore we do practices like mantra and so forth to make it easier for a Buddha like Amitabha to connect with us. If we dont make an effort, that connection will be far more difficult to establish. Therefore, out of compassion, all the Buddhas show the way to practice the path in accordance with the needs of each individual being, and for some that way is chanting the name of Amitabha. They do this out of compassion and not because they are making demands on us or asking us to pay them something. They dont gain anything by our practice nor do they lose anything because we dont practice, but we gain and lose a lot.