What does islams view on Buddha and his teachings

[Dharmakirti]

Helo

I have wondered what the muslim view on Buddha and his teachings..do muslims believe that Buddha exsisted and his teaching are valid and true....

like to hear some comments

 

[Yaqinud Din]

Dharmakirti yes I believe Siddhartha Gautama was a real human as for his teaching I believe they are 100% false.

 

[Saltmeister]

Dharmakirti yes I believe Siddhartha Gautama was a real human as for his teaching I believe they are 100% false.

100% false?

What do you mean by "false"? "False" in what context?

Buddhism is an approach to life.

Although I'm not a Buddhist myself, I would still say that Buddha was in many ways right that the pain in life and in the world is often caused by the desire for pleasure. I just wouldn't agree with him on all pain being caused by the desire for pleasure.

Therefore Buddhism can't be 100% false.

Yes, Siddhartha Gautama was as human as everyone else. Buddhist Enlightenment is a "beyond physical" (supernatural) experience. I suppose Gautama was never meant to be special in the first place. He was simply "the first to discover," according to Buddhism. You will find many religions in the world teaching a "beyond physical" existence, even one that isn't consciously perceptible. Buddha never claimed to be physically immortal.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting topic for consideration.

Buddhism is an approach to life.

it is that, but it is much more as well. technically speaking, Buddhism is called Buddha Dharma and, as such, it is a Dharma. Dharma is an interesting word in Sanskrit and can be applied to a very broad range of subjects. generally speaking, it denote that which "upholds or sustains" human society, religion, ethics and so forth. due to its nuanced nature, it requires a contextual understanding to figure out which aspect of the term is meant.

Although I'm not a Buddhist myself, I would still say that Buddha was in many ways right that the pain in life and in the world is often caused by the desire for pleasure. I just wouldn't agree with him on all pain being caused by the desire for pleasure.

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually isn't

the term which you have posted as "pain" is, in the Buddha Dharma "dukkha" and this term is more broad that a simple physical sensation of pain. in point of fact, the use of this term is meant to denote the overall experience of sentient beings from painful physical sensations, to painful emotional and psychological sensations to feeings of love and happiness.

what gives rise to dukkha are the kleshas, the mental obscurations which prevent beings from recognizing their own nature. what gives rise to the kleshas is a bit varied, primarily, however, it is tanha, often defined as "an intense craving to be".

Therefore Buddhism can't be 100% false.

indeed of course, we need to be clear that the Buddha Dharma is not really transmitted via the texts, though we do study them quite a bit. there is something else that is going on and we term it "direct mind to mind transmission of the Dharma".

Yes, Siddhartha Gautama was as human as everyone else.

whilst that is true enough.. this is not the case once he became Buddha Shakyamuni perhaps a bit outside the scope of our conversation here

Buddhist Enlightenment is a "beyond physical" (supernatural) experience.

well... yes and no. it is dependence upon the physical form that we can engage in the practice of the Dharma... so it sort of depends on the particular aspect we are speaking of, to my way of thinking.

I suppose Gautama was never meant to be special in the first place.

actually, he did that very thing though we are being a bit loose with the personal pronouns which are not all that applicable here. recall that when Buddha Shakyamuni was the mendicant Sudhana, he generated the Bodhisattva Vow and attained Annutara Samyak Sambodhi in the arising of Guatama Siddharta.

He was simply "the first to discover," according to Buddhism.

actually, Buddha Shakyamuni is the 4th Buddha to arise in our fortunate eon... and there will be nearly 1,000 more of them to arise. Buddha is a title, not a proper name of one being

there is a fairly popular Muslim apolegetic which is found in a variety of places... i've prepared a bit of a rebuttal to it which you can read here:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1920

metta,

~v

 

[Saltmeister]

it is that, but it is much more as well. technically speaking, Buddhism is called Buddha Dharma and, as such, it is a Dharma. Dharma is an interesting word in Sanskrit and can be applied to a very broad range of subjects. generally speaking, it denote that which "upholds or sustains" human society, religion, ethics and so forth. due to its nuanced nature, it requires a contextual understanding to figure out which aspect of the term is meant.

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually isn't

the term which you have posted as "pain" is, in the Buddha Dharma "dukkha" and this term is more broad that a simple physical sensation of pain. in point of fact, the use of this term is meant to denote the overall experience of sentient beings from painful physical sensations, to painful emotional and psychological sensations to feeings of love and happiness.

Pain is often a very general term I suppose. Perhaps I should have said something more subtle like discomfort, displeasure, shame, humiliation, disgrace, failure to succeed, rejection, depression, loneliness, etc.

what gives rise to dukkha are the kleshas, the mental obscurations which prevent beings from recognizing their own nature. what gives rise to the kleshas is a bit varied, primarily, however, it is tanha, often defined as "an intense craving to be".

I think you will find that neither Judaism, Christianity or Islam see desire/craving as a bad/negative/unhealthy thing. All three suggest that desire/craving can actually be healthy if used properly. For example, love of others (desire to benefit others) is healthy and constructive whereas selfishness (love of oneself and desire to benefit oneself) is unhealthy and destructive.

The basic idea is that we are sentient beings that can desire the benefit of and find value in our peers as well as ourselves. It's not just for practical purposes, but also for sentimental reasons -- for being alive, for existing and wanting that life to continue to exist. Does Buddhism see love as a positive thing too? I'm ready to be surprised. The worst thing to find out is that love is just another selfish desire/craving that deceives us into thinking we're doing something good.

It doesn't sound all selfish to me. Maybe sometimes we also want to see others happy as well as making ourselves happy.

 

[farhan]

Well if by Islam you mean primary texts of Islam , most muslims believe they say nothing about Buddha . There are some scholars who say that Quran refers to Buddha as Zul-kifl, a word which means "person belonging to Kifl" ( or kipl since arabic doesnt have a P sound ) . A lot of scholars say that the saintly figures of non-abrahamic religions can be considered as prophets (b/c a lot of their teachings were similar to Islam) , but since there is no clear words in Quran about them , so we cant be sure , & we cant say that Islam says so .

Personaly , whatever I have read about buddha's teachings uptil now, I find them 95% true . I might not consider his teachings as a religion , but as a philosophy, his teachings are immortal. I am a muslim BTW ( in case you dont know ) .

Regards

 

[ma70]

^ yeah, i support what you say too.

Also, as long as the teachings of Buddhism or any other religion doesn't contradict with Islam, its accepted and welcomed. Especially if it teaches good manners. Prohpet Muhammd (pbuh) said "Indeed I was sent to prefect the good manners" (btw, thats a poor translation of mine). So, any teachings that call for good manners are actually encouraged by Islam. Not because its coming from a specific religion, but because it calls for good manners.

 

[Amica]

Peace.

According to may faith's teachings, Allah The Merciful sent His Message to many communities of the world and Qur'an mentions thousands of Prophets who came before the Seal of Prophets (Muhammad pbuh). However, The Holy Qur'an mentions only some of them by name: Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael, Solomon, David, Noah, Muhammad, Jesus, Aaron, etc. (mostly Biblical Prophet's). The Holy Qur'an does not mention, but I personally feel that the reason why only Biblical Prophets pbut and Muhammad pbuh were mentioned is because their teachings are most preserved and more recent to the Revelation of Qur'an, the Final Testament. No people experienced a punishment before being warned, says the Qur'an. Perhaps that may be an explanation why there exist similarities between the believes of the people in the world, such as the belief in the Great Flood or ideas around that all over the globe among the ancient people.
Muslims are encouraged to read and learn. A person who forbidds evil and his teachings are welcomed so long as his statements/ideas/ are not leading people to disbelieve in One True God, Allah.

 

[inhumility]

Helo
I have wondered what the muslim view on Buddha and his teachings..do muslims believe that Buddha exsisted and his teaching are valid and true....
like to hear some comments

I am an Ahmadi, a faith in Islam. We believe that Buddha was a prophet of God; the Buddhists have lost his true message of belief in One God. For details, please access:
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html
Book titled “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” refer the chapter on Buddhism.
Thanks