Islam / Muslims / Nation of Islam

buddhafoot

I was out on a website made by a member of the Nation of Islam.

He was making some comments that "...Buddhism has existed for 35,000 years..."

I was wondering if there was anyone that had any knowledge of how long Buddhism has actually been around.

I don't think his statements are untrue. It could be that Buddha was not the first man enlightened - but possibly the first person that detailed this process for the rest of us.

-bf

DharmaKitten

buddhafoot wrote:

I was out on a website made by a member of the Nation of Islam.

He was making some comments that "...Buddhism has existed for 35,000 years..."

I was wondering if there was anyone that had any knowledge of how long Buddhism has actually been around.

I don't think his statements are untrue. It could be that Buddha was not the first man enlightened - but possibly the first person that detailed this process for the rest of us.

-bf

Wow, that's a long time ago - literally during prehistoric times. Seems like an odd number to come up with, personally. I guess how it defines "Buddhism", but I think most agree that "Buddhism" is the religion/philosophy directly based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (born around 566 B.C.E.). I wouldn't consider myself "Buddhist" if I didn't look to those teachings for guidance. Of course, there have been similar philosophies throughout history. The ones I've studied have all originated after Gautama's era, though I believe most if not all of those were not descendants of Buddhism but rather parallel creations. Have there been similar philosophies before Gautama? To me, it looks like his ideas were fairly revolutionary for his time. It's hard to say, though. Were there enlightened beings before Gautama? It depends on how we define "enlightened". Even then, hard to say - but I'd say probably. 35,000 years ago, though? How could we begin to prove that? It's hard enough to understand religions from historic times, let alone prehistoric.

My impression is that someone pulled that number out of the air to illustrate some point that they were trying to make. I'm kind of curious about the original intention there. Maybe it's supposed to mean that Buddhism is divinely inspired - but that seems somewhat contradictory to me. At least for me, Buddhism is about us mortals helping ourselves to find peace without having to rely on the whims of immortal beings. And while I don't doubt there have been wise and maybe even enlightened men and women for thousands and thousands of years, I wouldn't call that "Buddhism."

starstuff

Don't suppose he was saying Buddhism started with Hinduism, much the way that Christians consider Jewish history before Christ to be their history?

buddhafoot

Here is the site: http://www.muhammadspeaks.com/Questions.html

I believe the periodical "Muhammad Speaks" has been around for a long time.

It's very odd to read some of the teachings held in this site. I'm not condemning - just seems odd.

-bf

Palzang

Well, in the first place I'd take anything I read in Muhammed Speaks with a huge grain of salt (like a ton or so). They've got their own axe to grind, and they've never let the truth get in their way. I used to live just down the street from Elijah Muhammed and Muhammed Ali in Chicago when I was at the University of Chicago, so I'm very familiar with them and their history. They're pretty extreme in their views, to say the least. Lewis Farrakhan, the noted demigogue and rabble rouser, preacher of hatred, is one of their products, though no longer associated with NOI I don't believe. On the positive side, Elijah Muhammed and his teachings did give at least a portion of the black community a notion of self-identity and pride in their heyday, so I can't fault them too much. What their status is now I can't say as I've been away from Chicago, their main base, a long time.

As for their claim that Buddhism is 35,000 years old, I'd have to agree that it's a number they pulled out of the air. Historically Shakyamuni Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago, which even they admit on their website. However, it is said that Shakyamuni is the fourth Buddha of this fortunate aeon, fourth in a line of 1200 Buddhas which have appeared or will appear. Two of the previous Buddhas are called Kasyapa and Dipankara. Whether they have any factual basis in history is a matter of conjecture that is probably fruitless to pursue. Such teachings have little relation to what we in the West would call "history"!

Palzang

Windwalker

What is (566) B.C.E.? Is it any different to the Christian B.C.?

starstuff

B.C.E. = Before Common Era
B. C. = Before Christ

They are exactly the same, except for the label. I think the changing of the label had something to do with religious pluralism? Anyone know the story and reasons behind the label change?

Simonthepilgrim

Some of us use BCE (Before the Common Era) rather than BC (Before Christ) for a number of reasons, not least of which is that this era numbering system is no longer the sole preserve of Christians but has spread to secular and non-Christian nations.

In lieu of AD (Anno Domini), it is more courteous to use CE (Common Era).

Hart's Rules suggests that small capitals be used in each case, but I really can't be bothered to search for them, sorry!