Critics claim that Master Yin Shun proposed that "Amitābha Buddha equals the Sun God" or that "Amitābha Buddha originated from sun mythology (or worship)," but this is a misunderstanding. Despite efforts by supporters to clarify and refute these claims, the misunderstanding persists. This paper finds that critics' arguments are based solely on A New Perspective on Pure Land while neglecting The Origin and Development of Early Mahāyāna Buddhism. Additionally, they fail to clarify the existing theories on the origin of Amitabha Buddha in academia, resulting in an incorrect interpretation of Master Yin Shun's views and an inability to distinguish between his views and those of other scholars. This paper first examines the development of sun worship around the world and various theories on the origin of Amitabha Buddha, and then compares the content of the two aforementioned books. The findings reveal: 1. A New Perspective on Pure Land only states that Amitābha Buddha is related to the sun and uses the "Setting Sun Contemplation" in Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra and the "Homage to Amitabha Buddha in the Direction of the Setting Sun" in Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra to support this, without mentioning Buddhist Jātaka tales or Persian religion. 2. The Origin and Development of Early Mahāyāna Buddhism, using modern academic research methods, rejects Western scholars' "external theory" and does not accept Japanese scholars' "internal theory" (Hindu and Buddhist mythology). Instead, it proposes that Amitabha Buddha originated from Buddhist Jātaka tales but does not exclude the possibility that the Jataka tales of Amitābha Buddha, in their transmission process, interacted with sun worship in India and Persia, ultimately forming the Amitābha Pure Land "Dharma door" in the Persian region.
