-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buddha in Quran?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
To add further:
"Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Community, in his book Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, argues that Buddha was indeed a prophet of God who preached Monotheism. He quotes from the inscriptions on Ashoka's stupas which mention "Isa'na" which means God. He quotes, "'Thus spake Devanampiya Piyadasi: "Wherefore from this very hour, I have caused religious discourses to be preached, I have appointed religious observances that mankind, having listened thereto, shall be brought to follow in the right path, and give glory to God* (Is'ana)."[7] The Ahmadiyya hold the view that the Buddha was indeed a Prophet of God.
Mirza Tahir Ahmad has also stated that the Qur'anic figure called Dhul-Kifl may have been the Buddha in his book "An Elementary Study of Islam."[8]
In fact, a verse in the Qur'an quotes that God has sent many prophets to thee (Humanity)"
Gautama Buddha in world religions - Wikipedia
Regards
I will attempt to answer if you will overlook my ignorance. Suppose that I do not believe, and suppose that I also do not believe that Buddha is one of the prophets in Islam. Is there still anything good for me in Buddhism?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I believe in Buddha as a messenger/prophet of G-d because of truthful Quran, not because of Buddhism or Buddhist scripture. For one's question colored in magenta, one should ask from a Buddhist, please?
According to the truthful Quran, Buddha was a believer of G-d. Buddhists say that Buddha was not a believer of G-d. Right, please?
Regards
I think that Buddhists think of Buddha as a skeptic who did not even believe in the various gods that he personally met. There are stories of demons he has encountered, and these are not the Christian kind of demons but Hindu ones. They are like warriors with bad attitudes or something like gods. There are stories of him meeting gods, too; but he doesn't have any loyalties to them. All of these stories might be simply stories. I'm not sure whether Buddhists consider them to be actual events or if they are stories for becoming more skeptical about such things.
I think that merely asking a Buddhist about this would result in more confusion. I think it is one of those religious situations in which you can only find out by joining.
I would always go with the adherents of any religion about that religion, rather than the opinions of people from outside the religion. Most likely the proponents know more.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
We believe in Buddha as a messenger/prophet of G-d because of our own truthful Quran, not because of the Buddhists or the Buddhist-scriptures. It is the same way we believe in Jesus and Moses and many more about 24 of them only because of truthful Quran. Ours is a universal truthful Religion, as we understand it, others could believe whatever way pleases them. Right, please?
Regards
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Without taking account the Buddha's Dharma,you just have the name and not his Practice. There are many ways people define The Buddha to fit their scripture but I honestly feel the quran would be more valuable without him. The Buddha was a polytheist. He didn't deny god(s) existence but denied they were the way to enlightenment. The quran is monotheist. It doesn't match.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
How are you defining buddha?
Buddha is a title for a person not the person himself.
Edit. For example, lord doesn't mean a creator. It's a title of a person's authority. Anyone can use the word lord, but not all are worthy of its title.
Oh I know. I was just giving you my personal take. With regard to Buddhism, I would prefer to listen to Buddhists. With regard to the Ammadiyya sect, I would prefer to listen to Ammadiyyas. That's my way of respecting. But sure, lots of folks figure they know more about a religion than the adherents themselves.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Buddhist devas (gods) are not immortal and don't go around creating universes.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Could you clarify please? What hasn't a Buddhist "joined"? Aren't those who have "joined" not Buddhists?
I don't know what a Buddhist has or hasn't joined. All I have heard to become a Buddhist you "Take refuge in the 3 jewels." It sounds like joining to me.Could you clarify please? What hasn't a Buddhist "joined"? Aren't those who have "joined" not Buddhists?
Agnostisch
Egyptian Man
Buddha in Quran = NOAH 
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Buddhists think of Buddha as a skeptic"
Buddha spoke vehemently against Skepticism agnosticism.
I understand, Buddha spoke against Skepticism/Agnosticism in very clear terms:
Chapter 46:
Avoiding the Ten Evils “Free your mind of ignorance and be anxious to
learn the truth, especially in the one thing that is needful,
lest you fall a prey either , to scepticism or to errors.
Scepticism will make you indifferent and errors will lead
you astray, so that you shall not find the noble path that
leads to life eternal.” Verse -13
The Gospel of Buddha
Right, please?
Regards
_________
[2:3]
ذٰلِکَ الۡکِتٰبُ لَا رَیۡبَ ۚۖۛ فِیۡہِ ۚۛ ہُدًی لِّلۡمُتَّقِیۡنَ ۙ﴿۳﴾
This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas
The buddha you're talking about isn't The Buddha found in the Dharma. Only because they teach very different points of view-one practice and the other theological.
So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'
The quran can't speak of the buddha when it's backed up by writings from god and written by a prophet of traditions that are no where equal to that of The Dharma.
Quran must speak of a different buddha.
The problem is that Buddha is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran
Dhul-Kifl could have possibly been many people, although He is most commonly identified with Ezekial.
For example;
‘Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his Quranic commentary says:
Dhu al-Kifl would literally mean "possessor of, or giving, a double requital or portion"; or else, "one who used a cloak of double thickness," that being one of the meanings of Kifl. The commentators differ in opinion as to who is meant, why the title is applied to him. I think the best suggestion is that afforded by Karsten Niebuhr in his Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien, Copenhagen, 1778, ii. 264–266, as quoted in the Encyclopaedia of Islam under Dhul-Kifl. He visited Meshad 'All in 'Iraq, and also the little town called Kifl, midway between Najaf and Hilla (Babylon). Kefil, he says, is the Arabic form of Ezekiel. The shrine of Ezekiel was there, and the Jews came to it on pilgrimage. If we accept "Dhul al Kifl" to be not an epithet, but an Arabicised form of "Ezekiel", it fits the context, Ezekiel was a prophet in Israel who was carried away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar after his second attack on Jerusalem (about B.C. 599). His Book is included in the English Bible (Old Testament).[11] He was chained and bound, and put into prison, and for a time he was dumb. He bore all with patience and constancy, and continued to reprove boldly the evils in Israel. In a burning passage he denounces false leaders in words which are eternally true: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken......".[12]
— Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary[13]
Source: Dhu al-Kifl - Wikipedia
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I agree, so I am wondering if you can therefore clarify "I think that merely asking a Buddhist about this would result in more confusion" ?
Buddhist writings and lessons appear to thrive on confusion. It appears to take advantage of misunderstanding to require people to study further and for other purposes. Generally Buddhism uses Hindu terms in a non-standard way. You can't just ask a Buddist and expect to understand the religion. Let me draw your attention to 3 varied examples of purposefully inflicted confusion: 1. Mahayana terminology involving terms like 'Heaven'. Do Buddhists believe in heaven or not? Go ahead and ask! Well you have to look further into it before you can decide, not matter if some random Buddhist says they do or don't. The language is confusing, using special rules in its use of terms. 2. Symbolic terms and numerology. '3 Jewels'. '8 Fold Path'. These invoke superstition about numbers, and to an outsider they seem superstitious. Superstition fascinates for no apparent reason. Buddhism uses it. 3. Bowing to statues. This appears to many as adoration of gods or more superstition. When you ask a Buddhist what they are doing and why they have a statue what will they say? It will depend on the situation. To any Hindu it must appear that a deity is being worshipped.
You're supposed to be confused at times by what you read and see. Hence you can't simply ask a Buddhist and expect to understand. You have to get involved or 'Join'. That appears to be the whole point of the infliction of the confusion -- unless it isn't. Maybe Buddhists have gods and heaven and hell and numerology and believe Buddha does miracles. Maybe Buddhists are trying to achieve miraculous powers. It seems like it, and what is all of this stuff about reincarnated sages? Yes, you have to join to understand.