Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is There a Common Ground between Buddhism and Islam?
Silouan
Veteran
This Berzin Archive discussion topic on “Is There a Common Ground between Buddhism and Islam?” is an excellent examination for approaching an understanding of religious traditions other than our own holistically.
berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/islam/general/elab_common_ground_bsm_islam/transcript.html
berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/islam/general/elab_common_ground_bsm_islam/transcript.html
1
Comments
Guard your heart from heedlessness, protect your lower self from desires, guard your intellect from ignorance, and you will be admitted into the company of the vigilant. It is a duty for everyone to seek knowledge; that is, knowledge of yourself. al-Sadiq
People oppose things because they are ignorant of them. El-Ghazali
There is value in the inner traditions of many religions. As a Sufi mystic once said to me, 'Find a well, drink deeply'.
http://www.sufischool.org/sufism/origins.html
:wave:
That is one lesson that could be learned from the Global War on Terror, and its' two major campaigns. The biggest breeding ground for fundamentalist terrorists, of any religion, is poverty. That is in part due to religious teaching, whereas the pursuit of wealth is taught to be evil. However, the other side of this coin is the uncertainty of poverty. If you don't know how your family is even going to eat the next day, your religion teachings can be construed to make the wealthy nation evil, the wealthy nation practices a different religion(s), it becomes far easier to demonize that nation. Demonize that nation, and the next step is to attack it.
But it isn't as simple as trying to rebrand yourself in the eyes of this impoverished nation. The people suffer on a daily basis, and they are promised great reward for their suffering by their religion. Therefore, their religion must be right, or they have suffered all their lives for nothing. Therefore, all other religions, possibly even sects of theirs, must be wrong, and therefore the source of their suffering.
This also brings up that education and wealth go hand in hand. Third World nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim, don't have public education. In Islamist nations, the Wahabi funded Madrasa is often the only source of schooling for the local population. Add a free lunch, and all the nearby villages will be sending their young boys to study at the Madrasa. Ignorance is spread, because the education is controlled by the fundamentalist with an agenda.
I feel compelled to add a blurb now regarding effort based economies. Communism failed because of human nature. One aspect of that nature was laziness set in because of the lack of reward for those who worked harder. I make the same as the guy next door regardless of the effort I put in, so why should I really even try. So don't take my post here as a rant against Capitalism or any such. Corruption is really the only thing to rant against.
And corruption is another major factor involved in cultural/religious conflict. Those in power wish to stay in power or attain more. Greed pushes them to use the system to keep others downtrodden. The desired effect is to reduce competition from those who would otherwise h compete with them for power and wealth. Afghanistan was once the intellectual center of the Islamic world. The mountains of Afghanistan hide trillions of dollars in untapped mineral wealth of all kinds. Keeping the nation war-trodden and in poverty by supporting Madrasas means that Afghanistan isn't tapping that wealth, rebuilding itself, and shifting the power away from the Arabian Peninsula.
To bring this all full circle, the impoverished nation clings to its' cherished religious beliefs. The nation that embodies the devil portrayed in those beliefs practices other religions; Christianity in the case of a large portion the People, and forms of Buddhism in the case of many of the "Elites". Not all-descriptive, but beside the point. The Devil, which is the source of all your nation's suffering, practices these two different religions, therefore there can be no common ground between your particular religion and sect and theirs.
If we are to find common ground, we simply need to address the inequities of the Global Economy. I know I said I wasn't anti-Capitalist; I am however anti-Robber Baron. If we want to find that common ground, we have to deal with the inequity that stems from a handful of truly greedy men who are willing to bend, break and rewrite the rules in their favor, and continually leave billions to starve annually. We need to promote a common cultural value that eschews excessive wealth while continuing to reward those that work harder, and seek to address the natural inequities that do make some nations poorer than others. We need to address the wastefulness that is pandemic in the First World. And we need to start booing down any form of arrogance, especially when it is cloaked in false humility. It is my hope that we can see such a cultural shift in my lifetime. But, to quote Jesus in this matter, first we must remove the plank from our own eyes before we can remove the speck from another’s. I do not mean this to be a judgment on any single individual, merely a commentary on the state of the world as a whole.
Islam is caused by poverty? Or are you suggesting that all religion is caused by poverty? Are you suggesting that terrorism is caused by religion? I rather think it's caused by the foreign policy of some western nations, including mine, which appears (or would to me if I were a muslim) to be mostly about going on Christian crusades against Islam. Your penultimate paragraph is ambiguous but is certainly wrong in its conclusion.
To the OP, yes, there is a common ground between the two religions. Some would say they are not essentially different in their underlying teaching. Reading Al-Halaj, Al-Ghazali and Rumi should be fairly convincing. Of course, many muslims would vehemently object to this connection with Buddhism and would see these writers as heretics and Sufism as the work of the Devil. It's the same situation in Christianity. So you have to find your own interpretation and make up your own mind as to what Mohammed was actually trying to tell us.
The Sufi's on the other hand have a very interesting view of God, which can actually go well with Buddhist thought. In Sufi circles, it's said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was himself a mystic. One even has a lineage of teaching that they claim goes all the way back to Muhammad. It's an actual list, which is quite amazing. I'll have to find their name to repost here, but their view of God is quite different from that of the orthodoxy. God is beyond conceptualization, but there are attributes that Humans can realize (peace, love, understanding). Some choose to do this through prayer. Others through the Islamic version of a mala, called a tasbih.
Like Buddhism, Islam does promote critical thinking, at least in the Quran. However, while being encouraged to read in that Holy book, most Muslims have no idea how to interpret it and rely on others to do so. By this I mean that many in the Muslim world can read Arabic, but have little understanding of what's being read. As a result, they can easily be swayed by people who can twist the words to their own end.
Like Buddhism, meditation is encouraged in Islam. The salah (ritual prayer) is meant to be a kind of meditation. There is a story of the Prophet's cousin Ali being wounded in battle. An arrow had pierced his thigh and needed to be removed. The process would have been extremely painful, so his companions waited until the next prayer time. Why? Because they knew he'd be so absorbed in his prayer, that the pain would not even register to him. Unfortunately, today salah isn't like that. Instead of a spiritual act of devotion to the divine, it's become more of a ritual that must be followed or else there will be repercussions later on in life. As a result, there is no soul in the prayer. Sufi's, again are different. Since they do not fear Allah, they are able to gradually become absorbed in their prayers. I've often wondered if they are experiencing a Jhana.
Fana il fana, the annihilation of annihilation, is a high state of absorption into no-self. Apart from the demented dervishes that I almost belong to, some are notorious for being kind, enlightened and generous to monastics and other unfortunates.
Never judge Buddhists by the worst but the best.
Same with the secular, religious and marine.
:wave:
But there is nothing inevitable about any of this. Crop failures can cause poverty, poor education can cause ignorance, and extremism is just one of many causes of terrorism.
Imagine how annoyed you'd be if someone attacked your country and then blamed your resistence on religious extremism.
@Takuan - Thanks for the interesting post on Islam. You mention Ali. Was it not Imam Ali who said, 'Why dost thou think thyself a puny being, when within thee the universe is enfolded'.
Apparently they don't think there's any common ground.
Edit:
What is funny is that Buddhism existed in Iran long before the advent of Islam.
When within thee the universe is folded?"
Baha’u’llah quoting Imam Ali,
the first Shia Imam
In Clifford A. Pickover
Surfing through Hyperspace (vii)
OUP, 1999
Odd to read it in a science book but very relevant. I'll see if I can find the actual source.
The Iranian parliament has, by law, proportional representation of all indigenous ethnic and religious groups - the same groups are also permitted to practice their religion freely - Iranian christians for example are allowed to raise pigs and eat pork, to brew alcohol and wine and partake in all religious ceremonies.
Stating a theocracy is theocratic in nature is stating the patently obvious - it does not support the extrapolation to buddhism being a threat to the Iranian government or people.
The government does not adhere to a strict form of shia islam - there is nothing 'strict' about it - it is a shia government in what is supposed to be an islamic republic.
The point you make on understanding their hostility is based on ignorance of both Islam and Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/17/iran-confiscates-buddha_n_2706162.html
Secondly, I'll admit to not being a scholar. However I wouldn't say that I'm ignorant of the religion. As a former Sunni Muslim, I do happen to have more knowledge than an average non-musim person. When I was practicing, I spent much of my time researching Islam, in attempts to combat Christian missionaries. My specialty was Tawhid, Islamic monotheism. As a result of this, I won a few pissing contests and gained a little knowledge. I doubt I'm as ignorant as you think.
"Iran Confiscates Buddha Statues; Symbols Of 'Cultural Invasion' "...according to a report Sunday (sic?) in the independent Arman daily."
Mr Naseer Karimi does like the sensational headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/salman-rushdie-death-fatw_n_1888111.html
"Salman Rushdie Death Fatwa: Iran Adds To Reward For Author's Killing"
Note that he says 'Iran' adds to reward - so this is sanctioned by the government.
But in the article itself:
"A semi-official religious foundation in Iran has increased a reward...."
What does that even mean? A whole article based on? Finally towards the end he feels he must disclose:
"In 1998, the Iranian government declared it would not support the fatwa, but at the same time the government said it could not rescind the edict, since under Islamic law, that could be done only by the person who issued it. Khomeini died in June 1989."
Again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/amir-mirzaei-hekmati-iran_n_1193425.html
"Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, Former U.S. Marine, Sentenced To Death In Iran"
But where is his article when the sentence was overturned?
The cultural minister's comments were referring to the illegal trade in artifacts - there is no change in the law whatsoever, whether aimed at Buddhists or otherwise - it should be noted that Iran openly condemned the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan - both on grounds of historical significance and respect for the religion.
You made a very certain statement about the Iranian government stating that it considers Buddhism a threat - to this, I have pointed out that almost the opposite is true and applicable to Iranian law - Iran is tolerant of diverse religions but it does not tolerate external political influence.
I struggled with your final paragraph as it struck me on two levels:
First that you made a sweeping statement about the government's policy - I was unable to discern whether you referred to Shia Islam in a religious context (as in the religious beliefs of the individual members of government or the ruling elite) or whether it was a reference to sharia law or a certain application of sharia law - I found the definition of 'very strict' ironically loose - in all, I found that I was forced to adopt a myriad of stereotypes in order to approach it- Second that you understand how 'strict shia islam' and 'hostility towards buddhist images' could correlate - again, this is tough statement to reconcile - the assumptions employed I think probably do a disservice to the Iranian government and Shia Islam.
I apologise for any offence - you made a very strong statement in my mind and my reply was intended respectfully, though it was executed unskillfully.
Once upon a time two units deployed to Afghanistan about the same time. Now, Afghani children like to test NATO units when they get there, by throwing rocks at convoys. One unit would stop their convoy and talk to the children. If necessary, they would threaten to have the Afghan police arrest them. The other unit would throw rocks or bottles of urine back. Afghan elders are required by cultural tradition to offer tea to guests. One unit would get out and drink the tea with them, even though it often meant uncomfortable trips to the porta-potties later that day. The other unit never stopped.
One unit managed to reduce incidents in their area to almost nothing and had no KIAs the entire deployment. The other unit got hit with IEDs a lot and lost several soldiers.
Any guesses which unit got hit the least?
Imam Ali also has an incredibly devotional relationship with Jesus Christ: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/gospel.htm
Quite @lamaramadingdong : Name me a religion that doesn't say action have consequences and so we should all be nice to each other and I'd argue it wasn't a religion.
The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
Enough to make you weep isn't it?
I still keep occasional cyber companionship but have not been in a tariqah for years.
Tessa the wolf or Tasawwuf is the essence of Islam. Except no substitutes.
Maybe that's because there is no such thing as Buddhism - only universal mysteries?
The common ground is that we're all humans, looking for something, and wanting to find it through Love.
What is especially interesting about the text is that the pronouns of "I" and "you" (the believer and Allah) end up becoming confused so you no longer can tell who is who-- which I imagine was deliberate!
All mystical traditions may express it differently, but most of them arrive at a silence that is not merely the absence of words.
The ones running the institutions and those that believe in those institutions as institutions, on the other hand, often get stuck on the words.
An Niffari (Islam):
"The letter does not enter presence.
The people of presence pass by the letter.
They do not stay."
Abraham Joshua Heschel (Judaism):
"The righteous lives by his faith, not by his creed. And faith is not an allegiance to a verbal formulation; on the contrary, it involves profound awareness of the inadequacy of words, concepts, deeds. Unless we realize that dogmas are tentative rather than final, that they are accommodations rather than definitions, intimations rather than descriptions; unless we learn how to share the moment and the insight to which they are trying to testify, we stand guilty of literalmindedness, of pretending to know what cannot be put into words; we are guilty of intellectual idolatry. The indispensable function of the dogmas is to make it possible for us to rise above them."
Meister Eckhart (Christianity):
"We ought not to have or let ourselves be satisfied with the God we have thought of, for when the thought slips the mind, that god slips with it."
The Daodejing (Daoism):
"Dao prescribed as Dao is not the ever-present Dao."
Buddhism:
"If you see the Buddha on the side of the road, kill him!"
Hinduism:
"Not this, not that."
Ali Ibn Abu Talib
http://www.schoolofsufiteaching.org/qal/students/ps1.html
. . . The inner nature of the higher stations of Sufi practice and Bhumis of the devout vajrayana Buddhist - not so different . . .
for example one of the attributes of Allah is Hate
one of the manifestations of the dharmakaya is Wrathful
http://www.sufihealing.org/stations.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhūmi_(Buddhism)
. . . however such things are easy for the immature to misconstrue . . .
:wave:
Even to deny Buddhism as theistic is to go further than the Buddha went (who was ambiguous on the matter).
I don't think it is necessary to argue much on this point. The literature is there for all to see thanks to the internet. The poetry of Rumi is enough to verify that Islam can, and some would say should, be an investigation of the same mysteries addressed by Buddhism, and with the same results.
But don't expect too many Sufis from earlier times to be upfront in presenting their message. Those who did, like their Christian conterparts, tended to meet grizzly ends at the hands of the literalist establishment.