Monday, May 25, 2009
Mettaya is Muhammad? part 1
AN OVERZEALOUS MUSLIM MISSIONARY, TRYING TO CONVERT BUDDHISTS, SAYS THAT THE COMING OF MUHAMMAD (PBUH) WAS MENTIONED IN THE SUTTAS, AND CLAIMS THAT METTAYA BUDDHA IS NO OTHER THAN MUHAMMAD (PBUH)...
The so called Muslim ‘scholar’, Dr Zakir Naik in his article MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES, relied so much on Paul Carus’s Gospel Of The Buddha to stake his wild claims that Muhammad (pbuh) is indeed Mettaya Buddha. If he is sincere to the ‘scholar’ ethics, he would of course look for a more reliable source such as Tipitaka translations from the Pali Text Society or even consult learned members of the Sangha. He took for granted the early secondary works on Buddhism as presenting the whole picture of Buddhism. Numerous Muslim websites copied and pasted from each other this erroneous assumption, thus false information spread like wildfire on the internet, an assumed ‘trustworthy’ source of knowledge.
However, Paul Carus did omit several important informations in his description of things related to Mettaya. May be he did so because he thinks that such information is not important given the majority of his readers are not scholarly and not interested in Buddhist history as told by the Buddha Himself. He omitted the conditions before the coming of Mettaya Buddha, the time frame and most importantly, the Lakkhanas (32 Marks Of A Great Man).
All of these complete information can only be found in the Tipitaka, the ORIGINAL SOURCE containing the entire teachings of the Buddha.
The answer we, as knowledgeable Buddhists to the Muslim scholar is only one : NO, THE TIPITAKA SAID NOTHING ABOUT MUHAMMAD (PBUH).
The Buddha said one of the features of the Dhamma is EHIPASIKO, meaning COME AND SEE FOR YOURSELF, not come and belief. This Muslim scholar must do likewise, research the Tipitaka first before coming to any conclusion that the so called ‘facts’ he found is indeed said by the Buddha Himself. In the Great Standards as taught by the Buddha, we must not readily agree to everything taught by a monk. We must check it against the Suttas and Vinaya before passing it off as teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha has warned that in the future, false Dhamma will arise. In Anagata-bhayani Sutta (AN V.79), translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, the Buddha even prophesized that in the future “there will be in the course of the future monks undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. They — being undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment — will not listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, profound, transcendent, connected with the Void — are being recited. They will not lend ear, will not set their hearts on knowing them, will not regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping and mastering. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma.”
Hence, whatever comparisson made to Buddhism,should come from Tipitaka,not secondary sources.Part 2 will deal with heavier critisism on Zakir Naik's work.
The so called Muslim ‘scholar’, Dr Zakir Naik in his article MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES, relied so much on Paul Carus’s Gospel Of The Buddha to stake his wild claims that Muhammad (pbuh) is indeed Mettaya Buddha. If he is sincere to the ‘scholar’ ethics, he would of course look for a more reliable source such as Tipitaka translations from the Pali Text Society or even consult learned members of the Sangha. He took for granted the early secondary works on Buddhism as presenting the whole picture of Buddhism. Numerous Muslim websites copied and pasted from each other this erroneous assumption, thus false information spread like wildfire on the internet, an assumed ‘trustworthy’ source of knowledge.
However, Paul Carus did omit several important informations in his description of things related to Mettaya. May be he did so because he thinks that such information is not important given the majority of his readers are not scholarly and not interested in Buddhist history as told by the Buddha Himself. He omitted the conditions before the coming of Mettaya Buddha, the time frame and most importantly, the Lakkhanas (32 Marks Of A Great Man).
All of these complete information can only be found in the Tipitaka, the ORIGINAL SOURCE containing the entire teachings of the Buddha.
The answer we, as knowledgeable Buddhists to the Muslim scholar is only one : NO, THE TIPITAKA SAID NOTHING ABOUT MUHAMMAD (PBUH).
The Buddha said one of the features of the Dhamma is EHIPASIKO, meaning COME AND SEE FOR YOURSELF, not come and belief. This Muslim scholar must do likewise, research the Tipitaka first before coming to any conclusion that the so called ‘facts’ he found is indeed said by the Buddha Himself. In the Great Standards as taught by the Buddha, we must not readily agree to everything taught by a monk. We must check it against the Suttas and Vinaya before passing it off as teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha has warned that in the future, false Dhamma will arise. In Anagata-bhayani Sutta (AN V.79), translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, the Buddha even prophesized that in the future “there will be in the course of the future monks undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. They — being undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment — will not listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, profound, transcendent, connected with the Void — are being recited. They will not lend ear, will not set their hearts on knowing them, will not regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping and mastering. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma.”
Hence, whatever comparisson made to Buddhism,should come from Tipitaka,not secondary sources.Part 2 will deal with heavier critisism on Zakir Naik's work.
