MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES?

[Goedert]

Muhammad was not Maitreya. Point.

Another sammasambuddha only will apper when there is no more true dhamma, when the path that leads to nibbana has ended.

Maitreya also will be a Vīryādhika Sammasambuddha (through more effort) Buddha.

The future Buddha, the fifth of this kappa (Bu.xxvii.21).

According to the Cakkavatti Sīhanāda Sutta, he will be born, when human beings will live to an age of eighty thousand years, in the city of Ketumatī (present Benares), whose king will be the Cakkavattī Sankha. Sankha will live in the fairy palace where once dwelt King Mahāpanadā, but later he will give the palace away and will himself become a follower of Metteyya Buddha (D.iii.75ff).

The Anāgatavamsa (J.P.T.S.1886, pp.42, 46ff., 52; DhSA.415 gives the names of his parents) gives further particulars. Metteyya will be born in a very eminent brahmin family and his personal name will be Ajita. Metteyya is evidently the name of his gotta. For eight thousand years he will live the household life in four palaces Sirivaddha, Vaddhamāna, Siddhattha and Candaka - his chief wife being Candamukhī and his son Brahmavaddhana. Having seen the four signs while on his way to the park, he will be dissatisfied with household life and will spend one week in practicing austerities. Then he will leave home, travelling in his palace and accompanied by a fourfold army, at the head of which will be eighty-four thousand brahmins and eighty four thousand Khattiya maidens. Among his followers will be Isidatta and Pūrana, two brothers, Jātimitta, Vijaya, Suddhika and Suddhanā, Sangha and Sanghā, Saddhara, Sudatta, Yasavatī and Visākhā, each with eighty four thousand companions. Together they will leave the household and arrive on the same day at the Bodhi tree. After the Enlightenment the Buddha will preach in Nāgavana and King Sankha will, later, ordain himself under him. Metteyya's father will be Subrahmā, chaplain to King Sankha, and his mother Brahmavatī. His chief disciples will be Asoka and Brahmadeva among monks, and Padumā and Sumanā among nuns. Sīha will be his personal attendant and his chief patrons Sumana, Sangha, Yasavatī and Sanghā. His Bodhi will be the Nāga tree. After the Buddha's death, his teachings will continue for one hundred and eighty thousand years.

According to the Mahāvamsa (Mhv.xxxii.81f.; see Mil.159), Kākavannatissa and Vihāramahādevī, father and mother of Dutthagāmani, will be Metteyya's parents, Dutthagāmani himself will be his chief disciple and Saddhātissa his second disciple, while Prince Sāli will be his son.

At the present time the future Buddha is living in the Tusita deva-world (Mhv.xxxii.73). There is a tradition that Nātha is the name of the future Buddha in the deva world.

The worship of the Bodhisatta Metteyya seems to have been popular in ancient Ceylon, and Dhātusena adorned an image of him with all the equipment of a king and ordained a guard for it within the radius of seven yojanas (Cv.xxxviii.68).

Dappula I. made a statue in honour of the future Buddha fifteen cubits high (Cv.xlv.62). It is believed that Metteyya spends his time in the deva-world, preaching the Dhamma to the assembled gods, and, in emulation of his example, King Kassapa V. used to recite the Abhidhamma in the assemblies of the monks (Cv.lii.47). Parakkamabāhu I. had three statues built in honour of Metteyya (Cv.lxxix.75), while Kittisirirājasīha erected one in the Rajata-vihāra and another in the cave above it (Cv.c.248,259). It is the wish of all Buddhists that they meet Metteyya Buddha, listen to his preaching and attain to Nibbāna under him. See, e.g., J.vi.594; MT. 687; DhSA.430.

Still this is a useless discossion. As Ajahn Chah states "If you wanna see Metteya don't practice the dhamma". Muhammad is a prophet from the Islam, it's another thing, another tradition.

[oceanmen]

A good hearted and peaceful muslim is a very positive thing. They take their teachings on generosity very seriously, for example.

A bad muslim is a terrible thing. And the problem is that they reflect the original founder of the religion: Mohamed. 60% of the Quran is about war. Moderate people in the west assume Islam is a peaceful religion.

i beg to differ, i dont think you met the guy so how can you reflect him? how can anyone reflect him? the only think that can be reflected is how he was described in the so called "Hadith" which is not protected from corruption, manipulation and modification, hence it is not a realistic description of him, besides his role was not to be an example (as most muslims think) his role was to give the koran to the people,

....and that koran is not 60% about war - no idea where you got that from

i recall less than 8 of suras (of the 114 suras) speaking of "permision" to go defend yourself
with the following conditions:

1.your family is killed unjustly by an aggressor
2.you are driven out of your home by an aggressor
3.you are being treated unjustly by the aggressor

why are we accepting the french and english resistance movements in WW2 but we cant accept others to do so?
or are you ok with the Gaza Siege - not to mention the flotilla incident !!



Metta

[tiltbillings]

i beg to differ, i dont think you met the guy so how can you reflect him? how can anyone reflect him? the only think that can be reflected is how he was described in the so called "Hadith" which is not protected from corruption, manipulation and modification, hence it is not a realistic description of him, besides his role was not to be an example (as most muslims think) his role was to give the koran to the people,

And is it is a myth to think that Koran is free from manipulation, editing and the like.

[oceanmen]

i beg to differ, i dont think you met the guy so how can you reflect him? how can anyone reflect him? the only think that can be reflected is how he was described in the so called "Hadith" which is not protected from corruption, manipulation and modification, hence it is not a realistic description of him, besides his role was not to be an example (as most muslims think) his role was to give the koran to the people,

And is it is a myth to think that Koran is free from manipulation, editing and the like.

of course it is not a myth, but as he buddha said, do not belief anyone except your first hand experience
and that's not by judging the Koran without reading it in its original language -
or else it would be like reading shake-spear in Chinese...!!

[tiltbillings]

And is it is a myth to think that Koran is free from manipulation, editing and the like.

of course it is not a myth, but as he buddha said, do not belief anyone except your first hand experience
and that's not by judging the Koran without reading it in its original language -
or else it would be like reading shake-spear in Chinese...!!

I'll go with the recent scholarship on this question. There is no reason, however, to take unquestioned the pious Islamic belief that the Koran is exactly, without any alteration, as Mohammad wrote it. But even if it were, the question is: so? That hardly makes it true, and there is enough reason not to take it as being so.

[tiltbillings]

And is it is a myth to think that Koran is free from manipulation, editing and the like.

of course it is not a myth, but as he buddha said, do not belief anyone except your first hand experience
and that's not by judging the Koran without reading it in its original language -
or else it would be like reading shake-spear in Chinese...!!

I'll go with the recent scholarship on this question. There is no reason, however, to take unquestioned the pious Islamic belief that the Koran is exactly, without any alteration, as Mohammad wrote it. But even if it were, the question is: so? That hardly makes it true, and there is enough reason not to take it as being so.

And having to read it in its original language, that would be nice, but hardly necessary. Enough people have and have found it wanting. And argument like that cuts in every direction.

[oceanmen]

And is it is a myth to think that Koran is free from manipulation, editing and the like.

of course it is not a myth, but as he buddha said, do not belief anyone except your first hand experience
and that's not by judging the Koran without reading it in its original language -
or else it would be like reading shake-spear in Chinese...!!

I'll go with the recent scholarship on this question. There is no reason, however, to take unquestioned the pious Islamic belief that the Koran is exactly, without any alteration, as Mohammad wrote it. But even if it were, the question is: so? That hardly makes it true, and there is enough reason not to take it as being so.

And having to read it in its original language, that would be nice, but hardly necessary. Enough people have and have found it wanting. And argument like that cuts in every direction.

And having to read it in its original language, that would be nice, but hardly necessary.

i beg to disagree once again, sadly even the most educated scholars, Muslims and non Muslims, Arab speakers, Westerners and others, have totally ignored the true meaning of the koran, and prefer to recite it as a form of singing without reflecting upon its meaning. Sadly, its true meaning has long been forgotten (even by the muslims themselves) because they are too busy studying the so called hadith (sayings of Mohamed) which are 90% not even in line with Koran....and are mostly fabrications that lead to more and more divisions, superstition and fanaticism....
not to mention the many interpretations of the Koran in all languages that are also not in line with the meaning of Koran either,
due to the subjective nature of translation work -

hence it must be read in Arabic only to digest the message -

and if you find it un-neccessary to read shakespear in English
and if you think that in shake-spear in Chinese language has the same power and meaning -
then that is your opinion and you are free to belief what you like

who ever agrees with you will probably find the same holds true about reading the koran in any language
and who ever does not agree with you, will put an effort to learn Arabic and read it in its original form
just as many learn Hebrew to read the Tora in its original form...

Enough people have and have found it wanting. And argument like that cuts in every direction.

Once again, do not belief anything i say or other people say, unless you do your own investigation -



lots of Metta

[tiltbillings]

i beg to disagree once again, sadly even the most educated scholars, Muslims and non Muslims, Arab speakers, Westerners and others, have totally ignored the true meaning of the koran,

That is so problematic on so many levels. True meaning: one person's true meaning is an other's heresy. This is especially true among the theistic religions of the Book.

There is enough good, current scholarship that confutes the claim of an unchanged, unaltered unedited Koran. As for having to read it in Arabic, why would an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god be so limiting in the truth it claims to wants is supposed creation to know, that requires that it be known only in such a limiting, limited way? A god like that is not a god I'd would want to know.

[cooran]

Hello tilt,

I think what was meant is that, just like the Pali scriptures, it is better to obtain the skills to read in the original language rather than a translation - if what you want is complete accuracy unflavoured by the mind of the translator.

with metta
Chris

[tiltbillings]

Hello tilt,

I think what was meant is that, just like the Pali scriptures, it is better to obtain the skills to read in the original language rather than a translation - if what you want is complete accuracy unflavoured by the mind of the translator.

It is a bit more than that with the claims made about the Koran by Islam and the need to read it in Arabic. But whether one reads it in Arabic, especially as a second language and centuries away from the original time of its compilation, there is always going to "flavoring" of what is read. And even for a native speaker, reading the Koran in Arabic is no guarantee that one is going to get at how the language was used and what was meant without a considerable historical apparatus annotating it virtually word by word.

[oceanmen]

That is so problematic on so many levels. True meaning: one person's true meaning is an other's heresy. This is especially true among the theistic religions of the Book..

i agree, hence it is important to your own investigation. A few centuries ago if i wold say the world is round not flat the whole european continent would not agree with me...!! as for the theistic religions of the book, i think it has more to do with the attitude of people and their perception of the content of the book....

There is enough good, current scholarship that confutes the claim of an unchanged, unaltered unedited Koran.

once again i stick to the advice of Buddha not to belief anything till personally investigated (even if it was said by "enough good, current scholarship" )

As for having to read it in Arabic, why would an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god be so limiting in the truth it claims to wants is supposed creation to know, that requires that it be known only in such a limiting, limited way?

the koran clearly speaks of enlightened ones that were mentioned and enlightened ones that are not mentioned

وَرُسُلًا قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلًا لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ ۚ وَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيمًا
Of some apostles We have already told thee the story; of others We have not;- and to Moses God spoke direct;-
An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #164

these enlightened ones spoke many language, not only arabic, but many many other languages, and it is clearly mentioned that the best amongst them is not the muslim or jew, not the christian or hindu, not the buddhist or daoist but the one who is honest and righteous and seeks the truth with no fanatism (as in sticking to his tradition and rejecting others)


يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most honest/righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
Al-Hujraat, Chapter #49, Verse #13

A god like that is not a god I'd would want to know

me neither, but what makes your perception about those 3 letters like that?
society? personal experience? research? and how far did you research go?

and is there not a possibility that the concept of non-duality in Buddhism is the same concept of Oneness in belief systems?
and is it not possible that the idea of non-duality similar to the idea of believing in a superior power, serves to crush the ego in both cases?
its when we get married to that idea when we get fanatic

in Koran: Your God is what occupies your Mind the most....

Sadly this is not how most muslims and non-muslims see it
and instead they give you lip service about an old man with a long beard on a cloud
or someone who was crucified or someone who reached enlightenment under a tree or in a cave

their attachment to those people is not much different to my neighbours attachment to his favorite football team (fanatism)

..they are all humans who lived, and died...and we have the right to compete with them on the path to liberation,
the path of setting the mind free from all unskillful qualities, the path of truth and light, the path to non-duality and Oneness….

[oceanmen]

Hello tilt,

I think what was meant is that, just like the Pali scriptures, it is better to obtain the skills to read in the original language rather than a translation - if what you want is complete accuracy unflavoured by the mind of the translator.

It is a bit more than that with the claims made about the Koran by Islam and the need to read it in Arabic. But whether one reads it in Arabic, especially as a second language and centuries away from the original time of its compilation, there is always going to "flavoring" of what is read. And even for a native speaker, reading the Koran in Arabic is no guarantee that one is going to get at how the language was used and what was meant without a considerable historical apparatus annotating it virtually word by word.

i totally agree with you tilt, but my question is, are our claims enough for you to stop you from learning Arabic and trying it yourself?
and if it is, then my question is: is it ok for others to learn arabic and read it to see and experience by themselves?
is that not how truth seekers search in every nation, culture and tradition?

once again, each has his own path to reach non-duality but there is no reason to criticize someone else s path especial when we never tried it or when we misunderstood it or when it just didn't work for us....

[Kenshou]

and is there not a possibility that the concept of non-duality in Buddhism is the same concept of Oneness in belief systems?

Eh? As far as I know Buddhism is non-dual as much as is it is non-monistic, but rather codependent-origination-istic, to coin an awkward term. Which is certainly different than the monism or monotheism of Abrahamic religions.

[tiltbillings]

and is there not a possibility that the concept of non-duality in Buddhism is the same concept of Oneness in belief systems?

Given that the Buddha did not teach non-duality, the question is meaningless. As for Oneness in belief systems, that is the sort of things Baha'is like to say, but it carries not water, no sand and air passes through it.

and is it not possible that the idea of non-duality similar to the idea of believing in a superior power, serves to crush the ego in both cases?

Non-duality and believing in a higher power is a way for the ego to redefine itself. It is not the Buddha's teachings.

..they are all humans who lived, and died...and we have the right to compete with them on the path to liberation,
the path of setting the mind free from all unskillful qualities, the path of truth and light, the path to non-duality and Oneness….

Oneness. Are you a Baha'i?

As for the Koran, I understand the structure it has set up for itself (the structure Muhammad set up) but there is no reason to assume it is anything other than that.

[tiltbillings]

i totally agree with you tilt, but my question is, are our claims enough for you to stop you from learning Arabic and trying it yourself?
and if it is, then my question is: is it ok for others to learn arabic and read it to see and experience by themselves?
is that not how truth seekers search in every nation, culture and tradition?

There are enough carefully done translations out there that Arabic is not needed to get what the Koran teaches. The needing to read Arabic thing is just like the Lotus Sutra claims about itself.