Buddha in the Qur'an?

[paarsurrey]

Jesus and The Buddha are two different people.
How do you relate the Quran to The Buddha without recognizing who The Buddha is to Buddhist themselves?
What is buddha in the Quran?

"Jesus and The Buddha are two different people."

Sure Jesus and Buddha they were different human beings in different parts of the world. But they had a special relationship. Buddha had also prophesied for coming of Jesus (describing him as Bagwa Mitteya*, the fair color Messiah) to Tibet and Kashmir (after the event of Cross in which he survived) , so when Jesus came to Tibet and Kashmir, the followers of Buddha, I understand, accepted Jesus in large numbers as they were waiting for him eagerly. Right, please?

So, there is close relationship between Buddha and Jesus. Right, please?

Regards
______________
*"The books Pitakattayan and Attha-Katha contain the clear prophecy concerning the appearance of yet another Buddha, whose advent would take place a thousand years after the time of Gautama or ‘Sakhiya Muni’. Gautama himself states, that he is the 25th Buddha and that the ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ is still to appear, that is, after he has gone, one whose name will be Metteyya who will be fair-skinned will come. The English author goes on to say that the word Metteyya has a striking resemblance to Messiah.45 In short, Gautama Buddha clearly states in this prophecy that there would arise a Messiah in his country, among his people and his followers. That is why the followers of Buddhism had all the time been waiting for the Messiah to appear in their country. The Buddha, in his prophecy, mentioned him as ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ because ‘Bagwa’ in Sanskrit means ‘white’, and Jesus, being an inhabitant of the Syrian territory, was fair-skinned. The people of the land where this prophecy was announced, i.e., the people of Magadh, in which was located Rajagriha, were dark-skinned. Gautama Buddha himself was dark. He had narrated to his followers two conclusive signs regarding the future Buddha."
Page 95-96 "Jesus in India"
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Jesus and The Buddha are two different people."

Sure Jesus and Buddha they were different human beings in different parts of the world. But they had a special relationship. Buddha had also prophesied for coming of Jesus (describing him as Bagwa Mitteya*, the fair color Messiah) to Tibet and Kashmir (after the event of Cross in which he survived) , so when Jesus came to Tibet and Kashmir, the followers of Buddha, I understand, accepted Jesus in large numbers as they were waiting for him eagerly. Right, please?

So, there is close relationship between Buddha and Jesus. Right, please?

Regards
______________
*"The books Pitakattayan and Attha-Katha contain the clear prophecy concerning the appearance of yet another Buddha, whose advent would take place a thousand years after the time of Gautama or ‘Sakhiya Muni’. Gautama himself states, that he is the 25th Buddha and that the ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ is still to appear, that is, after he has gone, one whose name will be Metteyya who will be fair-skinned will come. The English author goes on to say that the word Metteyya has a striking resemblance to Messiah.45 In short, Gautama Buddha clearly states in this prophecy that there would arise a Messiah in his country, among his people and his followers. That is why the followers of Buddhism had all the time been waiting for the Messiah to appear in their country. The Buddha, in his prophecy, mentioned him as ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ because ‘Bagwa’ in Sanskrit means ‘white’, and Jesus, being an inhabitant of the Syrian territory, was fair-skinned. The people of the land where this prophecy was announced, i.e., the people of Magadh, in which was located Rajagriha, were dark-skinned. Gautama Buddha himself was dark. He had narrated to his followers two conclusive signs regarding the future Buddha."
Page 95-96 "Jesus in India"
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

The "buddha" you're talking about is not the buddha Gautama in buddhism itself.

You're using a name/title that does not apply to any abrahamic tradition.

Why the name buddha?

 

[paarsurrey]

The "buddha" you're talking about is not the buddha Gautama in buddhism itself.

You're using a name/title that does not apply to any abrahamic tradition.

Why the name buddha?

"abrahamic tradition/s"/religions

"The appropriateness of grouping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by the terms "Abrahamic religions" or "Abrahamic traditions" has been challenged.
In 2012, Alan L. Berger, Professor of Judaic Studies at Florida Atlantic University,[20] in his Preface to Trialogue and Terror: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam after 9/11 wrote that there are "commonalities", but "there are essential differences between the Abrahamic traditions" both "historical and theological". Although "Judaism birthed both Christianity and Islam", the "three monotheistic faiths went their separate ways". The three faiths "understand the role of Abraham" in "differing ways", and the relationships between Judaism and Christianity and between Judaism and Islam are "uneven". Also, the three traditions are "demographically unbalanced and ideologically diverse".[21]
Also in 2012, Aaron W. Hughes published a book about the category Abrahamic religions as an example of "abuses of history." He said that only recently the category "Abrahamic religions" has come into use and that it is a "vague referent." It is "largely a theological neologism" and "an artificial and imprecise" term. Combining the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions into this one category might serve the purpose of encouraging "interfaith trialogue", but it is not true to the "historical record". Abrahamic religions is "an ahistorical category". There are "certain family resemblances" among these three religions, but the "amorphous" term Abrahamic religions prevents an understanding of the "complex nature" of the interactions among them. Furthermore, the three religions do not share the same story of Abraham. For these and other reasons, Hughes argued that the term should not be used, at least in academic circles."
Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

It is a wrong notion to restrict Islam to the off-spring of Abraham, Islam is a truthful Universal Religion and it is revealed by truthful G-d in the truthful Quran on the truthful messenger/prophet Muhammad in many a verse of Quran, please:

[7:159] قُلۡ یٰۤاَیُّہَا النَّاسُ اِنِّیۡ رَسُوۡلُ اللّٰہِ اِلَیۡکُمۡ جَمِیۡعَۨا الَّذِیۡ لَہٗ مُلۡکُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ یُحۡیٖ وَ یُمِیۡتُ ۪ فَاٰمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰہِ وَ رَسُوۡلِہِ النَّبِیِّ الۡاُمِّیِّ الَّذِیۡ یُؤۡمِنُ بِاللّٰہِ وَ کَلِمٰتِہٖ وَ اتَّبِعُوۡہُ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَہۡتَدُوۡنَ ﴿۱۵۹﴾
Say, ‘O mankind! truly I am a Messenger to you all from Allah to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no God but He. He gives life, and He causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Prophet, the Immaculate one, who believes in Allah and His words; and follow him that you may be rightly guided.’

[3:20]
اِنَّ الدِّیۡنَ عِنۡدَ اللّٰہِ الۡاِسۡلَامُ ۟ وَ مَا اخۡتَلَفَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُوۡتُوا الۡکِتٰبَ اِلَّا مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَا جَآءَہُمُ الۡعِلۡمُ بَغۡیًۢا بَیۡنَہُمۡ ؕ وَ مَنۡ یَّکۡفُرۡ بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ سَرِیۡعُ الۡحِسَابِ ﴿۲۰﴾
Surely, the true religion with Allah is Islam (complete submission). And those who were given the Book did not disagree but after knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy. And whoso denies the Signs of Allah, then surely, Allah is quick at reckoning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, Islam is as much for China or Oceania and its people as it is for the Middle East or any part of the world as such.
Please get corrected yourself in this connection.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"abrahamic tradition/s"/religions

"The appropriateness of grouping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by the terms "Abrahamic religions" or "Abrahamic traditions" has been challenged.
In 2012, Alan L. Berger, Professor of Judaic Studies at Florida Atlantic University,[20] in his Preface to Trialogue and Terror: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam after 9/11 wrote that there are "commonalities", but "there are essential differences between the Abrahamic traditions" both "historical and theological". Although "Judaism birthed both Christianity and Islam", the "three monotheistic faiths went their separate ways". The three faiths "understand the role of Abraham" in "differing ways", and the relationships between Judaism and Christianity and between Judaism and Islam are "uneven". Also, the three traditions are "demographically unbalanced and ideologically diverse".[21]
Also in 2012, Aaron W. Hughes published a book about the category Abrahamic religions as an example of "abuses of history." He said that only recently the category "Abrahamic religions" has come into use and that it is a "vague referent." It is "largely a theological neologism" and "an artificial and imprecise" term. Combining the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions into this one category might serve the purpose of encouraging "interfaith trialogue", but it is not true to the "historical record". Abrahamic religions is "an ahistorical category". There are "certain family resemblances" among these three religions, but the "amorphous" term Abrahamic religions prevents an understanding of the "complex nature" of the interactions among them. Furthermore, the three religions do not share the same story of Abraham. For these and other reasons, Hughes argued that the term should not be used, at least in academic circles."
Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

It is a wrong notion to restrict Islam to the off-spring of Abraham, Islam is a truthful Universal Religion and it is revealed by truthful G-d in the truthful Quran on the truthful messenger/prophet Muhammad in many a verse of Quran, please:

[7:159] قُلۡ یٰۤاَیُّہَا النَّاسُ اِنِّیۡ رَسُوۡلُ اللّٰہِ اِلَیۡکُمۡ جَمِیۡعَۨا الَّذِیۡ لَہٗ مُلۡکُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ یُحۡیٖ وَ یُمِیۡتُ ۪ فَاٰمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰہِ وَ رَسُوۡلِہِ النَّبِیِّ الۡاُمِّیِّ الَّذِیۡ یُؤۡمِنُ بِاللّٰہِ وَ کَلِمٰتِہٖ وَ اتَّبِعُوۡہُ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَہۡتَدُوۡنَ ﴿۱۵۹﴾
Say, ‘O mankind! truly I am a Messenger to you all from Allah to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no God but He. He gives life, and He causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Prophet, the Immaculate one, who believes in Allah and His words; and follow him that you may be rightly guided.’

[3:20]
اِنَّ الدِّیۡنَ عِنۡدَ اللّٰہِ الۡاِسۡلَامُ ۟ وَ مَا اخۡتَلَفَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُوۡتُوا الۡکِتٰبَ اِلَّا مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَا جَآءَہُمُ الۡعِلۡمُ بَغۡیًۢا بَیۡنَہُمۡ ؕ وَ مَنۡ یَّکۡفُرۡ بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ سَرِیۡعُ الۡحِسَابِ ﴿۲۰﴾
Surely, the true religion with Allah is Islam (complete submission). And those who were given the Book did not disagree but after knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy. And whoso denies the Signs of Allah, then surely, Allah is quick at reckoning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, Islam is as much for China or Oceania and its people as it is for the Middle East or any part of the world as such.
Please get corrected yourself in this connection.
Right, please?

Regards

Paarsurrey. You are literally avoiding the question.

Why did you use the title/name buddha Gautama as a prophet from the Quran?

Why That name and not just "prophet", "teacher", "enlightened one", so have you.

Buddha has a distinctive meaning to buddhists. Why that name?

Using the word buddha and referring to it as from buddhism (as per OP) but then not taking into account what buddhist scriptures say about the guy, is very misleading and misusage of the word.

Why use it?

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey. You are literally avoiding the question.

Why did you use the title/name buddha Gautama as a prophet from the Quran?

Why That name and not just "prophet", "teacher", "enlightened one", so have you.

Buddha has a distinctive meaning to buddhists. Why that name?

Using the word buddha and referring to it as from buddhism (as per OP) but then not taking into account what buddhist scriptures say about the guy, is very misleading and misusage of the word.

Why use it?

That is one's line of thinking, my line of thinking is different from one.

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is one's line of thinking, my line of thinking is different from one.

Regards

That doesn't answer the question. Yes. You have a different way of thinking. So, you can explain why you use the term buddha from your perspective and not just prophet, teacher, enlightened one, or so have you?

 

[paarsurrey]

That doesn't answer the question. Yes. You have a different way of thinking. So, you can explain why you use the term buddha from your perspective and not just prophet, teacher, enlightened one, or so have you?

I will try some other ways to explain my point of view. Buddha is not a proper name of prophet/messenger Gautama Siddhartha Buddha, he was wise-man and every prophet messenger of G-d is a wise man as was prophet/messenger Luqman who was not in the off-spring of Abraham, yet a strong believer in One-ness of G-d like that of Abraham:

[31:13] وَ لَقَدۡ اٰتَیۡنَا لُقۡمٰنَ الۡحِکۡمَۃَ اَنِ اشۡکُرۡ لِلّٰہِ ؕ وَ مَنۡ یَّشۡکُرۡ فَاِنَّمَا یَشۡکُرُ لِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ کَفَرَ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ غَنِیٌّ حَمِیۡدٌ ﴿۱۳﴾
And We bestowed wisdom on Luqman, saying, ‘Be grateful to Allah:’ and whoso is grateful, is grateful only for the good of his own soul. And whoso is ungrateful, then surely Allah is Self-Sufficient, Praiseworthy.
[31:14] وَ اِذۡ قَالَ لُقۡمٰنُ لِابۡنِہٖ وَ ہُوَ یَعِظُہٗ یٰبُنَیَّ لَا تُشۡرِکۡ بِاللّٰہِ ؕؔ اِنَّ الشِّرۡکَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِیۡمٌ ﴿۱۴﴾
And remember when Luqman said to his son while exhorting him, ‘O my dear son! associate not partners with Allah. Surely, associating partners with God is a grievous wrong.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a wrong notion that Muslims only believe such prophets that were from the progeny of Abraham and are mentioned in Torah.
Prophet/messenger Luqman was a wise-man to believe strongly in One-ness of G-d and wise his son on his (deathbed) to always be a believer in G-d, never associating partners with Him and always be a thankful and obedient servant of Him. Right, please?

List of people in both the Bible and the Quran
List of people in both the Bible and the Quran - Wikipedia

Regards

 

[uloMartin]

Gautama was surely a Prophet to the Messenger ship of the Qur'an, Altho unmentioned in name; he was of the Messengers as 535 million people proof of it; Seen that the Qur'an is the final Testament; the predecessor of the Adamic Race; Buddha was in the Knowledge of What Cain and Abel (Qābīl and Hābīl) were in appropriation of What Destitute consented to the murder and forgiveness through one another's sibling in the means of Seth (شِيث‎).

AS any messenger the Four Noble Truth's Depict what Teachings of Buddha, the Gautama spoke in the Regions of the Lands; Wherein he Consented to his Siddharthahood in the Living Testimony of his Life.

So Whereas but meantioned in the verses that spoke of messenger sent to each their region. Buddha is consented by affiliation to the 535 Million Buddhist as a Testimony Which the Qur'an Must by Islamic Degree "Haqq"; Aknowledge that the Buddha, was a Testator and Theirfore a Messenger of his Time. Even tho unmentioned..

In the Literal Sense Persay, The Buddha by Esoteric State is A Person Whom Enlightenment of the Natural Consent of Haqq/Universe/Truth Came About. By this Means the' Quràn Sought No Necessity By Mohammeds Unknowledge that Such Personage in itself Was in Need of Been Meantioned; By the Consentioned of the Islamic, As What Was mentioned Was of the MiddleEastern Consent of the Descendants of Their Region in Time. For Whatever Reason Left Unnoticed As A propitiator And Martyr of his Time; Buddha Spoke And People Listened. To this is A Testator in it's Time Made Known of the Haqq/Truth of Human Relevance. Wherefor Which 535 Million And 1.8 Billion Muslim's yet Got to Go out of Religious Consequence of UnderStanding the Account thàt the Messenger-Ship of the Final Prophet Made Meantioned of in his Testimony.

It is A Means of Lack of Faith, That Does Not give Rise For Bodhihood to Be Of Portioned to the Summithood of All Messengership to the Knowledge of the Messengers; And Tho Albeit This Could Be unStated, The Definition of the Messengership of over 535 Million Buddhist People in the Segregated World, is Simply A Means of What Tells that For the Unificàtion of Faith. Buddha Was Amongst the Numbers. As One Worthy of Bodhihood Itself.

Mohammed (SAW) Had no idea of What Bodhi Was Done in A Different Region; But it Was Concluded; By Conscious Messengership-Hood; Thàt The Buddha As A Man, Was unFaulty to his Intent And Core; By the Gautama (the Expeller) Walks in the Siddharthahood (thus Accomplished) in his Buddha (Enlightened/Awakened) State of Being; In the Region of his Religious Want of Spiritual Meaning; Thus in Truth Unrepresented By People UnEnlightened of It's Way. Theirfore is their A Context Differently in Writing And Language in All Different Religion's to the ConQuest of G-o-d in the Excelling of the Perfection (Roundedness) of Each Religion of Dharmic And Abrahamic Religion, in itself.

बुद्ध सिद्धार्थ गौतम

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The term buddha doesn't refer to a particular person but a whole lead of teachers The Buddha had before and after him who became enlightened.

You're totally changing who Gautama Siddhartha is and what he taught. Having the name and using the name buddha doesn't mean you have the same person-especially one who believes in the monotheistic god "after" his day.

How do you redefined Gautama and then still associate this new person you're talking of to buddhism when buddhists themselves even don't even think The Buddha believes in any abrahamic monotheist god at all?

I will try some other ways to explain my point of view. Buddha is not a proper name of prophet/messenger Gautama Siddhartha Buddha, he was wise-man and every prophet messenger of G-d is a wise man as was prophet/messenger Luqman who was not in the off-spring of Abraham, yet a strong believer in One-ness of G-d like that of Abraham:

How can you call him a wise man when you don't read "his" teachings but your teachings about him?

You're literally redefining him.

 

[uloMartin]

The term buddha doesn't refer to a particular person but a whole lead of teachers The Buddha had before and after him who became enlightened.

You're totally changing who Gautama Siddhartha is and what he taught. Having the name and using the name buddha doesn't mean you have the same person-especially one who believes in the monotheistic god "after" his day.

How do you redefined Gautama and then still associate this new person you're talking of to buddhism when buddhists themselves even don't even think The Buddha believes in any abrahamic monotheist god at all?

Was this Directed At me or Someone other in Quotation; Please Refer When Responding With Quotation (to be Clear) I don't think that Buddha Was A Single Person; But An Alignment of Teacher's that Summed up in the Gautama Who Proceeded the Siddhartha of his Way.

In true Reality; A Historical Figure; or Figures Showed the Way in determination of Their Day; What Was Sought By All Man, As A Simple Means of Path; (Dao) or Way; In this We Correlate That the Definition of Their Faith Was in the Common; Whereby Which the Modern Society, With the Giving Knowledge Try to Associate the Knowledge Presented to This Day, As A Means of Appropriation To What (or Wherefore) the Buddha And His Teachings Taught; This is the Relevance of False Conclusion's.

Buddha Did not Speák of Abrahamic Faith, Seen Thȧt it Was Not of His Knowledge Base; But Rather to His Destitution And Region; Spoke of the Common Folks, Thàt adhered to the Demise of Suffering in the Conclusion's of the Four Noble Truth's And the Eightway Path. The Modern Conclusion of Buddhist Who Were Not Ascended Speak of Faith's Abrahamic in the Dis or Unknowledge to their Understanding of Their Premise of Their Faith; Buddha on the Other Hand, Had Knowledge of the Abrahamic Faith in Novel But did Not Conclude it Out - Seen He Was of the Dharmic Cause, Not the interLingering Faith of Abrahamic; To this Seen Theirfore is there Conclusions That the Buddhist Community to This Day And Age Wrong, in the Conclusions of What Ancient And Sages Spoke Through the Time Line Differences of Their Day's. Modern Inter-Linger Comes into the Conclusion, of Which the Premise of Heart And Faith Differ to Them; But Submit them into the Conclusion of Their Faith As Primarily is Considered Religion. The Conduct therefore is the Non Attachment to Names, Things or Anything Thus Alike of The Religious. To This Premise i Must Consort that Many Are on A Lingering Path to the Conclusions of Modern Age, But Not to the Like of the Predecessors or Ancient in Way's; This Thus is A 21st Century Religion; Policies And Politics to This Day And Age; And Battle of Dominance Rather Then the Faith By Which it Demises. All Sort Their Way in Whichever Disguise; I But Render A Summit of the Summatory Thạt defines Their Lives; As A Means of Speaking of the Ancient; the Articular of What they Spoke, of What they Have Seen.

Some Speak in the Globe, WHILE other's spoke of A Certain Details; This simply Mean's they Directed Their Work, And Time towards A Certain Preface; Rather to Say They Did Not Believe, it is More Vital to Say; "They Did Not Speak of it". Does Not Take Anything Away From Them; Rather Time Had it For Them to Simply Convey Their Messages in A Certain Particular Way to Their REGIONS of What Made Them Messengers of Their Time.

 

[paarsurrey]

The term buddha doesn't refer to a particular person but a whole lead of teachers The Buddha had before and after him who became enlightened.

You're totally changing who Gautama Siddhartha is and what he taught. Having the name and using the name buddha doesn't mean you have the same person-especially one who believes in the monotheistic god "after" his day.

How do you redefined Gautama and then still associate this new person you're talking of to buddhism when buddhists themselves even don't even think The Buddha believes in any abrahamic monotheist god at all?

How can you call him a wise man when you don't read "his" teachings but your teachings about him?

You're literally redefining him.

We, Muslims, don't learn as we understand what Jesus was from the Gospels, as Gospels were not the Word Revealed on Jesus. Jesus did not write the Gospels, he even did not dictate it to somebody. Jesus did not authorize anybody to write Gospels on his behalf.
It is Quran from which we learn and are able to define the character of Jesus and his teachings.
The same is true, we understand, of Moses and Buddha.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We, Muslims, don't learn as we understand what Jesus was from the Gospels, as Gospels were not the Word Revealed on Jesus. Jesus did not write the Gospels, he even did not dictate it to somebody. Jesus did not authorize anybody to write Gospels on his behalf.
It is Quran from which we learn and are able to define the character of Jesus and his teachings.
The same is true, we understand, of Moses and Buddha.
Right, please?

Regards

I'm still confused in why you use the title buddha. Buddha Gautauma is specific to Dharmic teachings. Anything outside of that, say Muslim, you are no longer talking about Gautama. Even if you use the name, you're still redefining him. He doesn't even fit into the Abrahamic prophet structure.

When you're talking about Gautama buddha, you're specifically talking about Dharmic view of him.

Once you redefine him from a Quran perspective, it is no longer Gautama buddha. You're redefining him.

Why use that name?

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddha in the Qur'an?

One may like to see the following on the topic, please:

Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Correction: It makes sense to some of us Muslims.

Why does it make no sense to some other Muslims, please?

Regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Why does it make no sense to some other Muslims, please?

Regards

You seem to be assuming that all Muslims agree with you wrt Siddhartha Gautama ('the Buddha')'s status as a Prophet or Messenger in Islam. Surely you realise that that is not the case? That this is not a mainstream position within Islam? Right? That was the point of my statement - to say, look, you can't simply say that Muslims (in general) adopt the same position as you and other Ahmadis on this.

My position: we certainly can't definitively say that Siddhartha Gautama ('the Buddha') was a Messenger or Prophet within Islam because there is no (unequivocal) reference to him as such in the Qur'an or the Ahadith, but it seems unlikely given that Buddhism as a religion today (in its many and varied forms) bears no real resemblance to Islam (in its many and varied forms). Sure, we take the view that past religions have been corrupted with the passage of time, but if he were a true Messenger or Prophet we would still expect there to be some vestiges of his original teachings as to the Oneness of God etc. remaining today, as is the case wrt, for example, Moses (pbuh), and there don't seem to be any such vestiges.

 

[paarsurrey]

I dont think that is a correct approach. The idea of all messengers should not be taken literally as "messengers" in the Abrahamic sense but can be understood or equated with spokesman/intermediary/manifestation/symbol of God. Similarly the idea of God can be equated with Reality/Absolute. (see Schuon's Understanding Islam for details).

God's message has been sent in various languages on earth depending on the type of people there and the language (or culture or understanding) they had. The Quran says, "We never sent a messenger save the language of his folk."-14:4.

It is a good point from a verse of Quran.
Buddha is generally depicted as a non-believer or as an agnostic. His character and ways don't match with the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics.For instance Buddha had a very clear view of good and evil and he emphasizes on self purification. Right, please?
Islam also emphasizes on self-purification. Right, please?
This is a point that makes Buddha a truthful Prophet/Messenger of G-d.

Regards
_______________
[5:36] یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ وَ ابۡتَغُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہِ الۡوَسِیۡلَۃَ وَ جَاہِدُوۡا فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِہٖ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تُفۡلِحُوۡنَ ﴿۳۶﴾
O ye who believe! fear Allah and seek the way of approach unto Him and strive in His way that you may prosper.

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddha in the Qur'an?

Yester-night I wanted to search for the similarities between the character and ways of Buddha and Muhammad. I found the following:


Reyaz Nadeem, Author
Answered April 29, 2018
"Forget the differences there are so many similarities between them that literally it can be easily proven that Prophet Muhammad was indeed a Buddha and Siddhartha Gautama a holy prophet.
SIMILARITIES:

• Both were gentle and preferred loneliness in the early stages of their life.
• Prior to their enlightenment both chose a secluded place for meditation.
• During their enlightenment both were visited by heavenly figures who encouraged them. (While Prophet Muhammad was visited by Archangel Gabriel whereas Gautama Buddha was visited by Brahma-Sahampati. It would not be surprising if both turn out to be the same.)
• After getting enlightened both started preaching the doctrine of truth.
• Both condemned the false rituals and practices prevalent in their time.
• Both performed miracles in order to prove their genuineness to the laity.
• Both were successful in having a following of their own.

According to Gautama Buddha, the following are the six criteria for identifying a Buddha:

(1) A Buddha attains supreme and perfect insight at night-time.

(2) On the occasion of his complete enlightenment he looks exceedingly bright.

(3) A Buddha dies a natural death.

(4) He dies at night-time.

(5) He looks exceedingly bright before his death.

(6) After his death a Buddha ceases to exist on earth.

Let us see how the above six criteria fit in the life of Prophet Muhammad.

(1) Muhammad (pbuh) attained supreme insight and prophethood at night-time.

And this can be understood by the following verse of the holy Qur’an:

‘We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power’. (97:1)

(2) Muhammad (pbuh) instantly felt his understanding illumined with celestial light.

(3) Muhammad (pbuh) died a natural death.

(4) He expired at late night just before dawn.

(5) According to Anas (r.a.), Prophet Muhammad looked exceedingly bright on the night of his death.

(6) After the burial of Prophet Muhammad he was never seen again in his bodily form on this earth.

Thus, one can clearly see that all the six criteria mentioned by Gautama Buddha for identifying a Buddha had been completely fulfilled by the personality of Prophet Muhammad.

After the creation of the order of nuns Gautama Buddha had told Ananda thus:

“Ananda, if women had not obtained the going forth from the house life into homelessness in the Dharma and Discipline declared by the Perfect One, the holy life would have lasted long, the holy life would have lasted a thousand years.

But now, since women have obtained it, the holy life will not last long, the holy life will last only five hundred years.”

(The Life of the Buddha by Bhikkhu Nanamoli, p. 106)

There are two important prophecies indicated by the above statement of Gautama Buddha. Firstly, the purity of his teachings has been lost since the beginning of the first century CE and, therefore, the so called Buddhists no longer lead a holy life. Secondly, it indicates the arising of Maitreya Buddha in the sixth century CE as the holy life was supposed to last for thousand years if the order of nuns was not created.

Regarding Maitreya Buddha, Gautama Buddha had prophesied thus:

“There will arise in the world, a Buddha named Maitreya, a holy one, a supreme one, an enlightened one, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe.

What he has realized by his own supernatural knowledge he will publish to this universe. He will preach his own religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at its climax, glorious at the goal, in the spirit and the letter. He will proclaim a religious life wholly perfect and thoroughly pure; even as I now preach my religion and a like life do proclaim. He will keep up the society of monks numbering many thousands, even as I now keep up a society of monks numbering many hundreds.”

(Chakkavatti Sinhnad Suttanta D.III, p.76)

The Sanskrit word ‘Maitreya’ or its equivalent in Pali, ‘Metteya’ means ‘loving, compassionate, merciful and benevolent’. It also means kindness, friendliness, sympathy, etc. One Arabic word which is equivalent to all these words is ‘Rahmat’. The Arabic-English lexicon by Lane gives the definition of “Rahmat” as “mercy, pity, compassion, tenderness of heart, inclination requiring the exercise of favour and beneficence; pardon and forgiveness.”

The last of all the prophets was Muhammad (peace be upon him) who came near about thousand years after the passing away of Gautama Buddha. The word ‘Muhammad’ is also spelt as ‘Mahamet’ or ‘Mahomet’ and in various other ways in different languages. ‘Mahamet’ or ‘Mahomet’ is comprised of ‘Maha’ and ‘Metta’. The word “Maha” in Sanskrit and Pali means “Great and Illustrious” while “Metta” means “Mercy”. Therefore ‘Mahamet’ or ‘Mahomet’ means ‘Great Mercy’.

Regarding Prophet Muhammad, Allah – the Almighty God says in the Holy Qur’an:

‘And We have sent you not [O Muhammad], but as a Mercy for all creatures.’

(21:107)

In his prophethood days Muhammad (peace be upon him), in fact, was called the ‘Merciful’ which is ‘Maitreya’ in Sanskrit.

According to Gautama Buddha, all the Buddhas of past and future had or will have two foremost disciples and one servitor. It is a well-known fact that Prophet Muhammad had two foremost disciples and one servitor. The comparison is as follows:

Prophet (Buddha) - Two foremost disciples - Servitor

1) Siddhartha (Gautama) - Upatissa and Kolita - Ananda

2) Muhammad (Maitreya) - Abu Bakr and Umar - Anas

And Muhammad (pbuh) did keep a society of monks numbering many thousands. At the time of his death there were over one lakh of his companions/disciples.

Now, after examining all the above mentioned facts it can be safely concluded that Prophet Muhammad was indeed the much awaited Maitreya Buddha.

In Buddhist texts there are also mentioned some other things like during the time of Maitreya Buddha human beings will live for 80,000 years, women will marry at the age of 500 years, etc. These things just lack common sense and were mere interpolations which can be termed as nonsensical just to confuse a reader.

DIFFERENCES:

The main difference lies in the compilation of their teachings which makes one believe that Gautama Buddha was an atheist. But that is not so as nobody knows for sure the exact teachings of Gautama Buddha.

While the teachings of Prophet Muhammad are in pure form complied as ‘Authentic Hadith’ whereas the teachings of Gautama Buddha lies in corrupted form.

As regards the authenticity of the Buddhist texts, most scholars argue that they are not in the original pure form as the majority of these texts were written more or less five hundred years after Gautama Buddha’s passing away. These texts were corrupted with ideas [like rebirth, temporary state of God, etc.] from Hinduism and Jainism.

Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...nces-between-Lord-Buddha-and-Prophet-Muhammad

"For many centuries it has been baffling for the scholars, especially for those holding a theistic view, that how could a person like Gautama Buddha deliver pearls of wisdom without being enlightened by the Almighty God. Was he really like that as the Buddhist commentators portray him to be? Was he an atheist? Were his teachings exactly like that as mentioned in the Buddhist texts compiled hundreds of years after his passing?'"

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

Isn't it intriguing, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The term buddha doesn't refer to a particular person but a whole lead of teachers The Buddha had before and after him who became enlightened.

You're totally changing who Gautama Siddhartha is and what he taught. Having the name and using the name buddha doesn't mean you have the same person-especially one who believes in the monotheistic god "after" his day.

How do you redefined Gautama and then still associate this new person you're talking of to buddhism when buddhists themselves even don't even think The Buddha believes in any abrahamic monotheist god at all?

How can you call him a wise man when you don't read "his" teachings but your teachings about him?

You're literally redefining him.

"How can you call him a wise man when you don't read "his" teachings but your teachings about him?"

I have read Gospel of Buddha, Dhammapada and many other material about Buddha, so I can say he was a wise-man. Right, please?

Doesn't one think Buddha was a wise-man, please?

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"How can you call him a wise man when you don't read "his" teachings but your teachings about him?"

I have read Gospel of Buddha, Dhammapada and many other material about Buddha, so I can say he was a wise-man. Right, please?

Doesn't one think Buddha was a wise-man, please?

Regards

Here's a clip from Sutta commentary and suttas themselves on what The Buddha means:

The name given to one who rediscovers for himself the liberating path of Dhamma, after a long period of its having been forgotten by the world. According to tradition, a long line of Buddhas stretches off into the distant past. The most recent Buddha was born Siddhattha Gotama in India in the sixth century BCE. A well-educated and wealthy young man, he relinquished his family and his princely inheritance in the prime of his life to search for true freedom and an end to suffering (dukkha). After seven years of austerities in the forest, he rediscovered the "middle way" and achieved his goal, becoming Buddha. A Sketch of the Buddha's Life: Readings from the Pali Canon buddho:
Awake; enlightened. An epithet for the Buddha.

The wisdom of The Buddha is different than the wisdom within Christian, Muslim, and Jewish traditions insofar it isn't related and focused on god as in monotheism but the training of one's mind towards not attachment.

I get what you're saying about the Quran speaking of the Buddha. Not many Muslims agree with you, from what I take on this thread. I'm just wondering why use the name Buddha and Guatama when these two don't refer to monotheist religions.

That's all I'm really asking. Why use that name?

Everything else is just a difference of opinion. I never heard of any person who thought The Buddha went under any monotheist faiths of abraham until I came on RF. That puzzles the mess out of me. But I assume it's not specific to all Muslims from what I gather here.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here's a clip from Sutta commentary and suttas themselves on what The Buddha means:

The name given to one who rediscovers for himself the liberating path of Dhamma, after a long period of its having been forgotten by the world. According to tradition, a long line of Buddhas stretches off into the distant past. The most recent Buddha was born Siddhattha Gotama in India in the sixth century BCE. A well-educated and wealthy young man, he relinquished his family and his princely inheritance in the prime of his life to search for true freedom and an end to suffering (dukkha). After seven years of austerities in the forest, he rediscovered the "middle way" and achieved his goal, becoming Buddha. A Sketch of the Buddha's Life: Readings from the Pali Canon buddho:
Awake; enlightened. An epithet for the Buddha.

The wisdom of The Buddha is different than the wisdom within Christian, Muslim, and Jewish traditions insofar it isn't related and focused on god as in monotheism but the training of one's mind towards not attachment.

I get what you're saying about the Quran speaking of the Buddha. Not many Muslims agree with you, from what I take on this thread. I'm just wondering why use the name Buddha and Guatama when these two don't refer to monotheist religions.

That's all I'm really asking. Why use that name?

Everything else is just a difference of opinion. I never heard of any person who thought The Buddha went under any monotheist faiths of abraham until I came on RF. That puzzles the mess out of me. But I assume it's not specific to all Muslims from what I gather here.

Many Muslims of different denominations agree with me on this point. I have quoted from some and I am not finished with it.
It is not a criticism on Buddhism, we are just doing what many Quranic specific verses enjoin us to do, with reasons. And it creates a friendly atmosphere in the world.
Please understand that Quran/Islam/Muhammad, I understand, are for the whole Universe/Mankind not only for the off-spring of Abraham. There are other prophets/messengers in Quran who were not Jews. One such name is Luqman- the wise-(man).
Actually, I understand, it is no problem, just please don't get puzzled. It is a point of appreciation, rather.
Right, please?

Regards