Salaam Alaykum to all

I would like to invite the members to read the book "The Great Love for Jesus led me to Islam" which can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/hosseincaraballo - http://www.geocities.com/hosseincaraballo

Insha Allah the members can give thier opinions on this work, and Insha Allah it will help in our propagation efforts.

Salaam

So any comments from those who have read the book, or part of it ?

Aleykum Selam,

Jello,i am the way of reading the book,from an first glance...absolutely wonderful...Jazak Allah Khair...

Salaam

So what about the opinions of Sulayman and/or other members ???

jello wrote: Salaam So what about the opinions of Sulayman and/or other members ???

 Wonderful!

^

Salam

So would a book like this have any use in a place like Turkey ???

    ¹⁵He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. ¹⁶Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This articles states

1.     None of the Gospel writers knew Jesus or heard him speaking.

2.     The Gospels were written in the Greek language while Jesus spoke Aramaic.

and by using the above from the Bible, the writers of the New Test. Mathew, Mark Luke and John KNEW the WORD OF GOD because they ate, drank, travelled, and witnessed the miracles Jesus did. And as Jesus stated to go spread the good news to all.. because with the NT God's Word is not only available to the Jews, but also to all Gentiles

Cypriot Boy wrote: This articles states     None of the Gospel writers knew Jesus or heard him speaking.     The Gospels were written in the Greek language while Jesus spoke Aramaic. and by using the above from the Bible, the writers of the New Test. Mathew, Mark Luke and John KNEW the WORD OF GOD because they ate, drank, travelled, and witnessed the miracles Jesus did.

This is one classical example of typical christian devotee who doesn't know about his own Bible and have total blind faith whatever his church wants him to listen and put faith onto it.

Can you show, my friend, from any reference even within NT, that specifically show Mark and Luke ate, drank, travelled with Jesus? These two gentlemen were not even counted in the 12 disciples of Jesus.

My blind faith? ONE must not result in cheap insults, God does not find satisfaction in that. The bible states that there was 12 disciples, one we agree on. But let us now see now the roles of Mark and Luke.

When Jesus was placed under arrest Mark was there and witnessed this event and the Gospel according to Mathew states that Mark existed and this was why he wrote part of the Gospel. Because he was eye-witness. Luke also accompanied Paul on his missionaries when he converted into a Christian. Saul was blinded by the LORD'S light and thus was named again with the name Paul. As LUKE STATES at the beginning

Luke 1

Introduction

    ¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,

jello wrote: ^ Salam So would a book like this have any use in a place like Turkey ???

 Absolutely,Turkey is the main land of the translated literatures of Islam...if you want,you can...why not?

Salaam

One of the problems I have heard is that since Turkey is trying to join the Europeans in all respects, the Christian Missionaries are taking advantage and are on the rampage in trying to convert people to Christianity...

So I guess this book might be good to translate into Turkish, perhaps when a new version comes out (The second version is already out)...

jello wrote: Salaam One of the problems I have heard is that since Turkey is trying to join the Europeans in all respects, the Christian Missionaries are taking advantage and are on the rampage in trying to convert people to Christianity... So I guess this book might be good to translate into Turkish, perhaps when a new version comes out (The second version is already out)...

 Aleykum Selam ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh,

 It is right that missionaries are working in my country;but they are giving so much than they take from us...i agree with your view of translating this book to Turkish is always needed,should be,waiting u...

You have Muslim missionaries in England, im sure you can have in Turkey. But historically Turkey has been pre-dominantly Christian.

Hello and Salaam

Well, it would depend on what time of history we are talking about. Obviously, before the advent of Christianity, there was obviously no "Christianity" in Turkey, so I do not know how Cypriot Boy's statement is to be understood ?

Before I begin analysing Cypriot Boy's reply, one thing uptill now is clear that he is not arguing about the point # 2, meaning thereby that he is either accepting this position or he has not enough knowledge about this subject. Whatever the case maybe, this point # 2 is therefore well settled and don't need further elaboration. I repeat this point again here just to keep the record clear.

 "2.   The Gospels were written in the Greek language while Jesus spoke Aramaic"

Now coming to point # 1, which is basically the authorship of these four gospels. Again, my brother Cypriot Boy, does seem to admit that Luke and Mark were not among the 12 disciples of the Jesus and only argues about they being the first hand witnesses among the masses who witnessed the miracles performed by Jesus. Kindly note the three references that he is presenting, one is specific occassion where he tend to allude the presence of Mark at the time of arrest of Jesus (quoted by Mathew) but then Cypriot Boy doesn't bother to provide the Biblical reference and two general references that Luke was also present around there when he was traveling with Paul and the second general reference is from multitude of people (around 5000) had witnessed the miracle performed by Jesus. Is this sufficient to assume that infact these two gentlemen actually authored the gospels which bears their name? Before we go into this claim, I even decline to admit the evidence brother Cypriot Boy has presented in the form of Luke 1 introduction. This passage clearly states that he is only verifying the account given to him by an eyewitness source. Thus he himself was not the eyewitness of this gospel. Here is what is written in this introduction and I am repeating it for ease of understanding "¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  " In the second to 4 the passage of the same introduction it would be more clear about the time frame of the author of these passages. Here are the rest of them "

³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. "

Someone who know little bit of Christian history would immediately realize the identity of "Theophilus" for which such an account was written by the author of these passages. However, those who don't know, can simply do a google search on his name and they would automatically know that this person was a Bishop of Antioch almost six generations after the time of Jesus (Death of Theophilus is estimated to be around 181 AD.) Here is reference for this info but it is not just one reference, many others can be obtained just by googling it down. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/theophilus.html - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/theophilus.html

So my brother Cypriot Boy, its rather encouraging that we can travel along this path to identify the truth. Let us come along and see what the present day Christian scholars talk about the authorship of these 4 synoptic gospels. As yet we are looking at just the two already admittedly known authors that they weren't among the 12 disciples. Now from the above evidence at least this author of "Gospel according to Luke" is out of our list of direct Witnesses. For the Mark, since you have not provided any specific reference from your Bible therefore I shall keep its burdon onto you till that time to comment anything about it.

However, I have already provided few links in other theards of this forum about the views the present Christian theologians have about the authorship of "gospel according to John" and I am just repeating the same cut and paste from that thread for the continuity of our discussion. But if you heavn't read it, let me know and I shall present the reference to this view as well over here.

"There are various opinions about the author of this Gospel.

1. John the apostle, brother to James and one of the sons of Zebedee.
2. The unnamed disciple (1:35-42; 18:15, 16; 20:3, 4, 8) referred to in the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:26; 20:2).
3. John the elder, who identifies himself as the author of Revelation (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). "

 

 

Cypriot Boy wrote: My blind faith? ONE must not result in cheap insults, God does not find satisfaction in that. The bible states that there was 12 disciples, one we agree on. But let us now see now the roles of Mark and Luke.

Hence you also conclude that they weren't amoung the 12 but just like us to see how could they be assumed to be the direct eye witness. First of all, if they weren't among the 12, I would not even consider any of testimony as they don't qualify to speak of anything about Jesus merely from a audeince standpoint of view. Can they claim to know everything about what Jesus taught and talked about? No, never ever. How can they be the eyewitnesses of all the details even the personal details about Jesus, if they were merely the bystanders of some of the occassions? Its not a blind faith then what do you call it? No sane person can accept their testimony, not atleast here in USA.

And a final note i stated that the four gospel writers ( synoptic) did witness the miracles of Christ. The above can only be written by those who had contact saw what the word of gOD achieved.

But your own quote from introduction to Luke refutes your assumption. His evidences are chain of transmission from the first eyewitness and not himself being the first witness. Kindly read the verse # 2 again and see what it tells us." ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

It was you my dear freind who added the argument that only the 12 ate and drank and saw the miracles of Jesus thus removing the possibility that is was only these twelve who only did.

Oh, so we are only looking at the possibliities here???. And what value we can be assigned to this possiblity. According to your estimates 2/5000 you said....Hmm. Do you think this is justified to consider this an authentic authorship. Don't you have any better than this number? I reasonably admitted the 12 disciples as they could, perhaps, may provide some more through and accurate testimony about Jesus, though the actual would have been direct account of Jesus himself. But now my brother is satisfied with the possiblities that too of 2/5000 or after going throught the account of introduction to gospel of Luke, it would be just 1/5000 or you may even argue that it should be 1/4999. Hmm...Need to travel a long distance. Nevertheless, I hope that this journey towards the truth shall enlighten us to find the ultimate truth.

......................It is illogical to say that you need the name of all 5,000 to know how many people were with Jesus. This is the crux of this discussion.

O my dear brother, where are you living? I am just asking for one name out of them who wrote the "Gospel according to Mark" (as author of Luke has been confirmed that he wasn't the eyewitness), based on solid evidence and not a flimsy possibility. Can you provide us this? I shall await till then. Take care.

Now coming to point # 1, which is basically the authorship of these four gospels. Again, my brother Cypriot Boy, does seem to admit that Luke and Mark were not among the 12 disciples of the Jesus and only argues about they being the first hand witnesses among the masses who witnessed the miracles performed by Jesus. Kindly note the three references that he is presenting, one is specific occassion where he tend to allude the presence of Mark at the time of arrest of Jesus (quoted by Mathew) but then Cypriot Boy doesn't bother to provide the Biblical reference and two general references that Luke was also present around there when he was traveling with Paul and the second general reference is from multitude of people (around 5000) had witnessed the miracle performed by Jesus. Is this sufficient to assume that infact these two gentlemen actually authored the gospels which bears their name? Before we go into this claim, I even decline to admit the evidence brother Cypriot Boy has presented in the form of Luke 1 introduction. This passage clearly states that he is only verifying the account given to him by an eyewitness source. Thus he himself was not the eyewitness of this gospel. Here is what is written in this introduction and I am repeating it for ease of understanding

You seem to have read the Bible where Jesus taught that the Gospel would be acted by the word of God and that his followers will write it. For to write it you must be inspired by the Holy Spirit. As with Luke, you state that i verify the account. No my freind, to be a Christian you  must beleive and have faith. As a muslim you may beleive that that is not enouh in what you have said before, but the Bible is the holiest book that has been inspired by God at the beginning then brought to life by the word of God in the end.

So my brother Cypriot Boy, its rather encouraging that we can travel along this path to identify the truth. Let us come along and see what the present day Christian scholars talk about the authorship of these 4 synoptic gospels. As yet we are looking at just the two already admittedly known authors that they weren't among the 12 disciples. Now from the above evidence at least this author of "Gospel according to Luke" is out of our list of direct Witnesses. For the Mark, since you have not provided any specific reference from your Bible therefore I shall keep its burdon onto you till that time to comment anything about it.

If you must ask..

51 " A young manm wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind" (Mark). Its been stated by many that Mark was describing himself because this  information is not referred to in any of the other 3 synoptic gospels.

As yet we are looking at just the two already admittedly known authors that they weren't among the 12 disciples

Ok i stated firstly the 4 synoptic authors, then YOU stated the 12 disciples. And YOU did not answer about Saul who heard the the word of God ( Jesus) and converted himself to Paul. You do not have to be a witness to God at any one time. This is quite interesting isnt it? Before the word of God was shown on Earth do we dismiss all other information? No..

Hence you also conclude that they weren't amoung the 12 but just like us to see how could they be assumed to be the direct eye witness. First of all, if they weren't among the 12, I would not even consider any of testimony as they don't qualify to speak of anything about Jesus merely from a audeince standpoint of view. Can they claim to know everything about what Jesus taught and talked about? No, never ever. How can they be the eyewitnesses of all the details even the personal details about Jesus, if they were merely the bystanders of some of the occassions? Its not a blind faith then what do you call it? No sane person can accept their testimony, not atleast here in USA.

I answered this above. How can you a muslim know what Muhammed taught about? But you can and you live in the year 2005. I call it faith in God and the power of what he can do. Blind faith is where you do not know where you are going to and that you hope for the best. I have faith.

But your own quote from introduction to Luke refutes your assumption. His evidences are chain of transmission from the first eyewitness and not himself being the first witness. Kindly read the verse # 2 again and see what it tells us." ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

Didnt the closest people who heard what Muhammed said and wrote it down? But by your assumptions it is not reliable for they were not in the cave where he heard the Angel Gabriel. As for the above it states the FIRST eye-witnessess. Your writings does not make sense actually.

Oh, so we are only looking at the possibliities here???. And what value we can be assigned to this possiblity. According to your estimates 2/5000 you said....Hmm. Do you think this is justified to consider this an authentic authorship. Don't you have any better than this number? I reasonably admitted the 12 disciples as they could, perhaps, may provide some more through and accurate testimony about Jesus, though the actual would have been direct account of Jesus himself. But now my brother is satisfied with the possiblities that too of 2/5000 or after going throught the account of introduction to gospel of Luke, it would be just 1/5000 or you may even argue that it should be 1/4999. Hmm...Need to travel a long distance. Nevertheless, I hope that this journey towards the truth shall enlighten us to find the ultimate truth.

As we say in Greek the phrase 'pooooo' which means you seem to have taken yourself down a long road which is the wrong way. I said possibilities in which you stated that it can only be the 12 disciples who saw all the miracles Jesus did. And your waffling about numbers is your doing not mine. Before i stated the number from the Holy Bible.

O my dear brother, where are you living? I am just asking for one name out of them who wrote the "Gospel according to Mark" (as author of Luke has been confirmed that he wasn't the eyewitness), based on solid evidence and not a flimsy possibility. Can you provide us this? I shall await till then. Take care.

I have above and apart from the Bible like you have the hadiths right.. the  extensive and satisfyingly circumstantial account of Mark's life was written by Severus, Bishop of Al-Ushmunain, in the 10th century. According to this account, Mark was the nephew of Barnabas, who was cousin to Peter's wife. Mark was one of the servants at the wedding feast at Cana who poured out the water that Jesus Christ turned to : wine.

God bless . I do not need to say hope God leads us to the right path because faith is a personal thing and only can God do that.

Hello

51 " A young manm wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind" (Mark). Its been stated by many that Mark was describing himself because this  information is not referred to in any of the other 3 synoptic gospels.

Since when does a person describe himself in the third person... Remember that at the begining of "Luke's Gospel", the "Luke" says "I considered", "I saw"... so who is this person describing what happened to "Mark" ???

Cypriot Boy wrote: The History i am talking about is that before the Ottomans came to Anatolia, Christianity existed. And it was Ataturk that destroyed the Christian element in the 20th Century. Including 400,000 Pontian Greeks killed, 1.5 million Greek refugees moving into Greece, over 2 Million Armenians killed in Genocide. This is what i mean.

 You know nothing about the history then i am not eager to discuss with you,i need some silence for an week...feel free to read and share whether you do wrong...

Cypriot Boy wrote: You seem to have read the Bible where Jesus taught that the Gospel would be acted by the word of God and that his followers will write it. For to write it you must be inspired by the Holy Spirit. As with Luke, you state that i verify the account. No my freind, to be a Christian you  must beleive and have faith. As a muslim you may beleive that that is not enouh in what you have said before, but the Bible is the holiest book that has been inspired by God at the beginning then brought to life by the word of God in the end.

So you mean to acknowledge that you don't care when the author wrote it based upon your faith as he must had been inspired by God and only then he could wrote what is written in it. Wow, this is totally amazing. Anyhow, let us see who these writers were. As for the gospel according to John is concerned, I have already shown (with reference from Australian Catholic School) that the author is anonymous, so how would anyone put his faith that the author was actually inspired by the God? Since we don't know who wrote down this book how would you put your faith that it was an inspired work?

Now, let see what Christian scholars say about the author of gospel according to Mark. Here is one of the remarks and reference is given below for anyone to look at it.

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3: 15:36-39). He appears in Pauline letters ( 2 Tim 4:11; Philippians 1:24) and with Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter's "interpreter," a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day " [Introduction to Mark; New American Bible]  The reference to this passage is no one else other than the Christians scholars themselves. Its strange that they have not yet conveyed this info to their own people. But why?

If you must ask..

Why to ask brother? Truth shall reveal to itself.

51 " A young manm wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind" (Mark). Its been stated by many that Mark was describing himself because this  information is not referred to in any of the other 3 synoptic gospels.

Wow, what a conclusion! Brother, really is this kind of replies you get from your churches? Do you get satisfied with these replies? I am really astonished? Especially look at the source of this info that I have highlighted and underlined; By whom? Who stated that?

Ok i stated firstly the 4 synoptic authors, then YOU stated the 12 disciples. And YOU did not answer about Saul who heard the the word of God ( Jesus) and converted himself to Paul.

Alright, my brother now I think we are heading towards the root cause of the shape of Christianity that is existing in now a days. You have rightly pointed out that it is basically the St. Paul (or Saul you may call) doctrine that we are looking at the present day Christianity. By the way who was St. Paul? Is there any gospel attributed to his name as well? Wasn't he the one who used to persecute the followers of Jesus but never ever met Jesus all through his life? Of course then the story goes on with his conversion in which he met Jesus in his vision and from then onward we see St. Paul overriding all other apostles' teachings. The only scriptures (epistles) in NT with known authorship are those of by St. Paul or people after him. So, now all our attentions require to accept the testimony of St. Paul about how and what Jesus used to teach in his life time on earth than from the teachings of Jesus himself or the disciples of Jesus. 

You do not have to be a witness to God at any one time. This is quite interesting isnt it? Before the word of God was shown on Earth do we dismiss all other information? No..

Yes, indeed its quite interesting. Forget about Jesus what he said, forget about all his disciples who lived with him and just listen to St. Paul as only he recieved Jesus in his vision??? By that account why did you stop at limiting your gospels till Revelations. What about the later day saints who all claim to have vision of Jesus etc? Aren't their account not worthy of being in the same category of inspired scriptures as those of Paul, for atleast they are better than the anonymous writers.

I answered this above. How can you a muslim know what Muhammed taught about? But you can and you live in the year 2005. I call it faith in God and the power of what he can do. Blind faith is where you do not know where you are going to and that you hope for the best. I have faith.

My brother, O my dear brother, before anyone put his faith, he must verify the authenticity of the source of such an information. I know the fact, that Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad, not from my faith, but from the authentic historic sources which has shown beyond doubt that Quran was revealed to prophet Mohammad. Its not based upon my faith. However, from then onward, its the faith that calls to accept the contents of Quran through my belief on the Prophethood of Mohammad and not before that. Therefore, your request to accept the anonymous authorship of gospel writers on the bases of faith alone is not understood.

Didnt the closest people who heard what Muhammed said and wrote it down? But by your assumptions it is not reliable for they were not in the cave where he heard the Angel Gabriel. As for the above it states the FIRST eye-witnessess. Your writings does not make sense actually.

Well, now atleast you would understand the difference that I am talking about the evidence and faith. My question for evidence is with respect to known authorship of a holy scripture who claimed prophethood; like we know about prophethood of Mohammad. After that the contents of his scripture/writtings are just a matter of faith in him. So with anonymous authorship of a peice of writting is attributed in whom are you putting your faith onto? 

As we say in Greek the phrase 'pooooo' which means you seem to have taken yourself down a long road which is the wrong way. I said possibilities in which you stated that it can only be the 12 disciples who saw all the miracles Jesus did. And your waffling about numbers is your doing not mine. Before i stated the number from the Holy Bible.

Just leave everything aside as what I said and you understood or vice verse. Just let us know the authors of the four gospels in NT from any authentic sources that world knows of.

I have above and apart from the Bible like you have the hadiths right.. the  extensive and satisfyingly circumstantial account of Mark's life was written by Severus, Bishop of Al-Ushmunain, in the 10th century. According to this account, Mark was the nephew of Barnabas, who was cousin to Peter's wife. Mark was one of the servants at the wedding feast at Cana who poured out the water that Jesus Christ turned to : wine.

Where are your references other than mere stating the names of certain personalities? Quote some books or websites, or aritcles their date of publication etc to authenticate your reply. My above mentioned reference from NAB does take care of all this info that you are trying to convey and yet it says the book (gospel according to Mark) is anonymous. Period. If you have anything other than this, I would be glad to look at it other than that I leave it to you how you reconcile based upon your faith alone.

Hello to varshaken

We Muslims believe that the Quraan was a revelation from Allah to Muhammad, so it was not "written" by Muhammad or his disciples. Of course, there are so many things to consider, so perhaps varshaken could ask his specific questions about the Quran so that we can answer them...

varshaken wrote: Hi All!!!!!!! Sorry to break in.  But I find these posts very interesting and very informative.  I don't know much about Islaam or Christianity as I a m a Buddhist.:-)  Though Joyia and Boy have explained a lot, I still have some questions. Are the Bible and Koran completely correct?  I have read somewhere that they were not written by Jesus or Muhamad and that they were written by their desciples after their death.  Koran has got some beautiful truths, but still sometimes I feel that what they say are fairy tales. Varshaken, the Samurai.

My Dear Brother varshaken

Well come to our discussion. Its an open discussion and anyone is most well come to put their veiws on the topic under discussion. No need for formality at all. Regarding your questions concerning Quran and Bible, I can ( I hope) answer on the behalf of Quran only and leave it for others to comment about Bible. So as you must have read my earlier posts on this thread and elsewhere (especially in discussion with Bharatiya while discussing Hinduism), that we believe (as a matter of faith) that Quran is the true word of God (we call Allah) and was revealed to Mohammad (we consider him Prophet of God) through angel Gaberial. So for us Prophet Mohammad is a true messanger of God who got the message from the God (an Infinite God) for finite human beings like us. Angel Gaberial and Prophet Mohammad were just the messangers but not worthy of worship by themselves. Since prophet Mohammad was a human being, like any other human being, other than that he was a chosen Prophet of God, he was a normal human being where he used to walk, sleep and eat just like any other human do. He spent all his life (about 63 years) among people and his life biography became his testimony for his truthfulness. Both, before he was appointed for his Prophethood and after he proclaimed his Prophethood, we observe it through reading about him and then we find him to possess extremely imaculate qualities worthy of being a Prophet of an infinite God. It is for this reason that we can't and we don't speculate as who brought the true word of God (i.e. Quran) to us. It is all through historically proven knowledge. We know for sure that he was a illiterate person who never went to school of his time and never got any formal education from any source. Yet when we read Quran, we get amazed how such a person tell us about things that not even the most sophisticated philosophy of modern times can present. This word of God (Quran) was not revealed in one  or two days in a book form, but it was revealed gradually, step by step, over a period of around 23 years. As the verse were used to reveal, he dictates them to his followers as well as to his especially appointed scribes to put them in a written form. Therefore, the Quran was and still now is not only preserved orally but in the written form right from the first day of its revelation. Now, once we read it, we find God speaking to us (in first form to the tense) in each and every verse. Since it not a history book nor it has any human composition, therefore expecting any similarity with these traits in Quran is a fallacy. Its contents are not in coronological order over the peroid of its revelation (i.e. 23 years). Yet the order of verses and chapters has such a continuity in them that they (I think) are most significant for convincing the reader about its truthfulness and recognization that indeed only God, only one God, is praise worthy in all our prayers.

Though I tried to summarize as much as I can about God, Mohammad, and Quran, but this ofcourse is not sufficient. You can scan through this forum, especially in the basics of Islam threads, and definitely you can get more about Islam and its related topics. However, I see your faith as Buddhist and since I don't know anything about Buddism, can you open up a new thread about your faith and let us know about it. This shall help me and others on this forum to know better about buddism directly from the source rather than having preocupations from indirect sources. Especially once Bharatiya alluded, during the conversation, that Buddha was the one who rose against the Varna (caste) system of Hinduism, I got excited about knowing more about this man. Since he never elaborated on this further that if he considers Buddha to be a reformer in Hinduism or what, I would like to invite you to talk about this and much more than this in a new thread. Hope to read so much good info from you about Buddhism.  

varshaken wrote: Hi AhmadJoyia!!!!!! Thank you for your wel come. I have to serch for the posts of Baratiya. I will make it a point to read them. Is Baratiya your friend?

I call everyone my friend whosoever come in contact with me in this forum. In this sense, yes Bharatiya is my friend.

Mr. AhmadJoyia, you were saying that Moslems believe that Koran is the word of Allaah as a matter of faith. So you mean that there is no proof that Koran is the word of Allaah.

What kind of proof are you looking for? What kind of proof do you have with you when you say you believe in Buddha so that I can compare and see if I can make an anology with that? If I present you the proof from within the Quran itself, then one may call it a circular argument etc otherwise the Quran itself is such a noble book that whenever I read it, I testify myself that such an info can't be from anyone else but from my One God, who is the Almighty , most merciful and most wise.  As I said, the beleif in the contents of the Quran for me are based on the faith that I put in the prophethood of Prophet Mohammad and that he indeed is the last messanger of Allah.  However, other than this, the historicity of this person, Mohammad, and all his sayings are well known proven and there are no conjectures in them.

Who is angel?  Do you believe in angels?  I never heard about any angel from my Moslem friends.

Angels, yes, I believe, are among the creatures of God like humans, animal, plants etc and are created for specific purpose. Some of their purpose or duties are know to us through the knowledge we obtain from Quran and teachings of prophet Mohammad. Apperantly they are non interacting species with humans, however, only God knows when, where, and how they might interact with humans. I don't have much knowledge about them other than angel Gaberial's role as a messanger of God who communicated between God and Prophets on this earth. Even Prophet Mohammad is known to recieve the Word of God (Quran) through this angel Gaberial. I also beleive through the teachings of prophet Mohammad that there were almost 124 thousand prophets came to earth for the guidance of mankind, however only few are known through Quran. In that sense, I may even guess that Buddha might be one of them. But then this is my personal opinon based on conjecture and we don't know for surity as he is not mentioned by name in Quran. 

I know some about Muhamad.  When we are told about concentration, practice of meditation and goodness of a Soul we were given examples of Gotama Buddha, Mahaveera, Muhamad etc. But i dont know much about him.

I hope you will learn more about him as you read and read more about him on this forum as well as from thousands of other websites.

What are the extremely imaculate qualities you were talking about??

Ofcourse I can't describe them fully over here without appearing to be boasting about him. Therefore its always prudent to read from the people who wrote about him. However, briefly stating, one can consider him a perfect human being.  His honesty, truthfullness, and mercifullness were well known among both his friends and foes.

What is the historically proven knowledge?

Any knowledge which is historically known and not through the matter of faith alone.

I dont understand how iliteracy and knowledge are linked.

According to my understanding, no iliterate person that too 1400 years ago, can dictate such a book as we have in the form of Quran. A book free from any contradictions and well preserved. Therefore it must have a divine origin. 

Buddhism teaches that everyone can be a Buddha irrespective of whether he is a educated person or iliterate and they had been not one but many such people.

Then would you consider all of the teachings and sayings of these people at par with that of the doctrine of Buddha? Then you must also have a full liberary of such teachings or sayings kind of well preserved and well observed by every other person. Isn't it? And then this process must be kept going on even in present circumstances as well. If this be the case then we my have several of the present day Buddhas. In the end, my question is then what is the significance of Mahatma Buddha if we already have so many of them after him? Though I even don't know about the doctrine of Buddha, therefore guessing on it. But hopefully, you may like to throw some light on it as well.

My friends told that Koran was perfectly protected and there are no superstitions in it.  I believe what they say because I dont know much about it.

You beleived them because you don't know anything about it. Hmm. I see this logic very interesting. I think this is not very true otherwise you wouldn't be here? I should say that probably you don't believe them , therefore you are in search of  your own knowledge from kind of independant sources or atleast multiple sources. But the fact remain, in the end whatever you make up your mind about Islam, that would still be based upon these sources. Then your beleif or faith would yet be limited to your quest of this truth based upon the understanding of others. However, I would always invite such people to read Quran by themselves. If they don't understand any specific verse or verses, probably then I or others in this forum may provide their explanations to these verses. However, based upon your own understanding you would have more solid and firm opinion about Quran and Islam.

I have almost scanned the entire forum and searched a lot through the internet but could not find the answers for my questions. I got the answer that we should not ask such questions. Thats why I asked these questions here and even asked these questions in Islaam for non-Moslems.

I hope I have tried my best to respond to your questions, but again, I would recommend you to read and read the Quran yourself. Though, Arabic language is the necessary condition to understand Quran without any human bias, but as a beginner, you can read it in your own language or in English whatever suits you most.

There is very little to know about Buddhism but still very subtle.

Kindly excuse me for my poor english as I don't understand the meaning of your word 'sublte' here. Can you elaborate what does it mean here?

We do not have a concept of God. Thats why some say that we are atheists and Buddhism is not a religion at all.  Buddha himslef said,"I am not here to give you speculative answers, but to help you free youself from bondage."

What questions, do you think are being referred to the sayings of Buddha as regard to his allusion to 'speculative answeres'? I mean what were the questions that Buddha didn't want to speculate upon? From the bondage, I guess, he meant the Varna (caste)system that might be prevalent among his people, like hindus of that time? If not, then what other bondage is he refering to?

So we dont have anything like angels, gods, heaven, hell etc. Buddha means not God.

Did Buddha ever explained who was he and what was his purpose of teaching everyone about peace?

Buddha is a title given for the one who has attained Peace. Everyone can be a Buddha.

Buddhism is also simple like Islaam. Requirement of a Moslem is submission to Allaah. We become a Buddha when we are good and when we enter into higher consciousness where we find eternal Peace through meditation. We do not talk about Peace after life, but here itself.

What is meditation and what is its purpose, especially in the absence of concept of God? What do you conceptualize or visualize in your meditation?

I would like to tell you about Buddhism.  But first, I want to know about Islaam. Thanking you, Varshaken, the Samurai.

Sure my brother, go ahead, but begin with the chapter 1 of Quran or whereever you got struck for any difficulty in your last reading, as I suggested above, hopefully we all shall help you understand it or refer you to some sources more knowldgeable than us.

Dear Administrators,

I think we are diverting from the main topic of this thread and this might be offending the originator of this topic as well as my friend CypriotBoy. Can you take our disscussion which ever you think is not related with this topic to a new thread whereever you deem appropriate; as I don't know this technicallity.

Thanks for everyone of showing patience to admit our diversion from the main topic. 

Peace to you, Varshaken

I am not a regular in this forum, however, I found your last post intellectually stimulating and I wanted to point our something.

If you say that Islaam is based on belief that Koran is the word of God and that the proof is that because Koran cannot be said except God, then I am not at all satisfied

According to my understading, Buddism (or Shinto, possibly, if you claim to be a Samurai) is not a religion, but rather, a philosophy. It seems that your primary problem with Islam is a mixing of philosophical and religious concepts. Relgion, by definition, is a belief system. Before accepting a belief system, a person must accept that Allah (God) exists. This is based on BOTH rational proof and faith. However, it must be said that the aethist is also a "beliver", in the sense that by the use of sensory/empirical proof alone God cannot be either proven or disproven scientifically. You cannot remove either your mind or your heart from any inquiry, to attempt to do so leads to error.

Once one accepts that God exists, that he is just and that he is unified in his essence, then the question of "which religion?" can be explored. In order for one to choose the correct relgion, he must use his rational mind. The relative merits of "inclusive" religions must be explored. I say inclusive because not all religions accept that one can choose to become a follower of their faith. However, rational proofs are not sufficient, as the Holy Quran says in Surat Al-Fatiha,

" Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors, not of those inflicted by Thy wrath, nor of those gone astray."

Surah Fateha, Verses 6-7

If we, on our own, were capable of our own guidance (al-hidayah), then we would not need religion as it has been revealed. The Holy Quran is a book of law (specific do's and don'ts), as well as a book of philosophy (general principles and concepts). The reason is that man needs both, and our creator knows us best.

" I feel that God is mean in saying that we have to obey him."

Is it love or meaness which motivates a parent to prevent their young children from doing something that will injure them (such as running out onto the highway). We are very short-sighted and immature regarding what will ultimately benefit or harm us. Anyone who reflects on their own life will understand the truth of this.

Sayed Tabatabai in his exegis of the Quran addresses this issue very well when he says,

" Actually, not every proof is asked for, nor every unques­tioning adoption of others' ideas and concepts is objectionable. Man proceeds on the road of perfection through his intentional activities. His actions emanate from his will, and the will springs from thought and notion. Thinking, therefore, is the foundation of his perfection. Man depends on practical or intellectual cog­nition to which his perfection is directly or indirectly related. This cognition creates in his mind the need for individual or collective actions; this knowledge leads to intention and will which produces the desired activity."

http://www.almizan.org/Discourses/AD3.asp - http://www.almizan.org/Discourses/AD3.asp

" I find it to be superstition people go round and round the Caabaa and drinking water of Zamzam"

In a religious system, the rituals themselves are only a reflection of an inner, immaterial spirtual reality. Allah has prescribed these rituals in order for man, due to his limited perception, to have access to a higher divine reality that cannot be perceived through the five senses.

Salam

varshaken wrote: Hi AhmadJoyia!!! Sorry for my english. I shall be as good at it as possible from now on. You were asking about Buddhism. Though I may not say everything, I will tell you the basics without using any words which we Buddhists use. By subtle I mean that though outwardly it may look imperfect but inwardly it is perfect.

I really couldn't understand the terms "outwardly" vs "inwardly" other than if you are trying to say  appearance (outward) vs the actual (inward). In that way I think it makes sense that people may have many preoccupations while trying to understand any relegion from the bias sources e.g. as you referred the website in the end of your posting. However, this is one reason to talk about this directly from a knowledgeable person like you.

Buddhism is based more on reasoning. Buddhism tries to reason as best as one can.

This is perfectly desirable characteristics. I really appreciate it.

Truth requires no prop. Truth shall prevail. This is the great tenet of Hinduism which was carried on to Buddhism.

Though, your definition about Truth may be true, but my question is what truth are you talking about? I mean Truth about what?  On the more if you are trying to eqaute this Truth with its root from Hinduism, then it follows that the great scriptural books (Vedas/Upanishads) of hinduism defining this Truth must be acceptable with Buddhism as well. Isn't it? But you didn't mention them at all. Then from which cardinal point the two differs apart?

Our book Tripitaka is full of truths. Even if anyone destroys the books, they are just destroying the books and not the truths. Truth shall prevail.

Without defining "Truth" how can I understand the plural of this word used here i.e "Truths"? Are You trying to say that the book Tripitaka contains many wisdoms about reality of life? Then you also seem to suggest that though the book (in physical copy form) can be destroyed but since its contents are in people's (Buddhist I suppose) mind, therefore it would not be lost. That is logical, however, I hope you are not asserting on the eternity of the discovery of these truths, because I think that understanding is not logical. Any truth, though may it still exist but if not understood through some channel, is as equivalent to as truth destroyed or undiscovered. So in that sense, if Buddha had not given his doctrine (made discovery), simply the rest of the details of Buddhist relegion would never had existed. Isn't it. Here, I am trying to understand truth through discovery rather than its invention. I hope I cleared my example.

And about believing in Gotama Buddha, its a matter of fact.

Well, here is where I need you to substantiate your stated "fact" through evidence, if you happen to disagree with my explanation of believing in Mohammad. Then of course, we can compare each others evidences about their respective 'facts'.

Gotama did not ask anyone to believe him. He just used to teach people of his time how to attain Peace in this life itself.

I am not clear over here. You mean Gotama taught people of his time to learn from him without people trusting him that whatever he was teaching them was indeed true or false. This is amazing. I have never come across any such teachers in my life except the hypocrites. And I am sure Buddha wasn't among one of those. So you may need to explain here what is meant.

His methods were not at all elaborate. He just asked us to be good, love everyone and everything and meditate.

If the source or origin of Buddhism is not elaborative, then from where this elaboration of present day practices in Buddhism come in? Secondly, what is the definition of 'good' and 'love' are you using as they both are relative terms. Anything 'good' for me may not be good for the society or vice versa. Similarly, we can say about 'love'. Selfish 'love' could have drastically different implications on our lives than impersonal 'love' or whatever opposite to 'selfish' you can define. So, Buddha must have given some elaborations on these terms. Isn't it?

We can meditate on anything. On a constant sound, on our heart beat, on the tip of the nose etc.

You mean to say simply focusing on a particular rythemic object is what is called Buddhist meditation? Then what is different than hyponotism or other such techniques of mind concentrations?

And we need not wait long for the results to come.

I really couldn't understand about what results are we looking for as I said 'good' or 'bad' are relative terms.

Within one month or even less than that time we find that everything in our life will change for the good.

Again, good life is a relative term. However, if this be the materialist good, and the result as stated is correct, then we shouldn't be seeing any Buddhist in any worldly miseries etc. Isn't it?

Even Muhamad had to initially meditate.

I really need to ask your source of info that Mohammad used to meditate on his nose or any sound or things like this as suggested in your above description of Buddhist meditation. I am not even sure if there is only one kind of meditation as you described or many other forms of meditation that varied depending upon people's beliefs etc.

We shall find for ourselves the ephemeral nature of the universe and many other reasons for different things in the universe.

Oh, really!! You mean to say through meditation (Buddhist's version of it), we can make scientific discoveries? I really need more understanding about this through some examples etc. 

The different reasons for how the meditation produces these results and various related things are written in the Tripitaka. Tripitaka was not written by Buddha. It was written by his desciples.

And exactly who these disciples are those who co-authored this book?

It is a very big book. I dont think it has been entirely translated in english. It was intially written in Sanskrit and Pali, then was translated to many other asian languages.

 Important question over here is as to which language did Gothama spoke or taught? Secondly, you mean to say part of this book was written in Sanskrit by the disciple/s who used Sanskrit to write it and some other parts in Pali by those disciple/s who wrote in Pali. Is there any specific reasons for using two different language for the same source assuming Gothama spoke only one of them (I don't know if it is known that he was bilingual in his teachings etc)?  

Most of the Buddhists in the world are peaceful, they are good to talk to. I am not boasting about myself. I am just telling the truth.

I know that as I have some Buddhist friends who are very peacefull. But then they don't know anything about this book that you are refering to. Hence couldn't get any usefull discussion with them as you seem to provide. A real educated one. I am gratefull.

Buddha is a word which denotes a man who has awaken to the truth.:) The truth is what we have to find out for ourselves.:)

Again I am not clear about what "truth" are you refereing here. For example, if I am stuck in my some scientific observation in explaining it, I know if I think and think logical on this observation (either by meditating on it or whatever way I gain concentration) I shall find the truth. But what is so specific about Buddhism then. Its known through a common logic that the more you give thoughts to your problems (with concentration) more you find its solutions. Isn't it? I have myself experienced about it that if I sleep after I have been working and thinking too hard on any specific problem, sometimes, I may get the solution of them during my sleep. But I understand this is because during my sleep, my mind never stop working. So whatever I input into it with all my endeavors (concentration) before my sleep, the same input remains in it and mind keep working on the riddle (obviously more concentrately) and therefore may get its solution. But I never considered this to be any work of spirit or etc. Its just my own mind to think logically and that is all.

In our posts I was telling that Faith and Truth are two different things. Faith by its very nature is devoid of logic and reason.

I may agree with you, though yet I don't understand as to what are you refering to specifically about "Truth" over here.

Precursor of faith is belief. If I say that I believe in something, then its my belief. Its may not be the truth.

Ofcourse not the faith but the belief can be made based on evidential form of truth. Therefore, if there is evidential truth in beleif, faith would automatically gets its implication. Isn't it? That is why I always try to distinguish between a blind belief and a logical belief. This evidential faith comes through analogical reasoning and deductive logic. For example if I read about a book whose author is mentioned in it to be born in america at 100 BC, then I must question (logically) about this book as modern history knows the discovery of this part of world not to be so old. Therefore those who believe in that book may only have a blind faith, just because they think the book, otherwise, carry lot of wisdom in it. Yes, of course this faith may not be based upon truth.

Truth requires no prop.

This is, what I call it, a sweeping statement. Infact, Truth does require prop from its evidence. Without this evidence or 'prop', no truth shall be truth but merely a assertion. For example, the truth about the fact that earth is round does require 'prop' from our analytical reasoning to understand the laws of physics. So, I think every statement does require logical reasoning, its prop, to identify its nature whether truth or otherwise.

Truth shall prevail. Some time ago people believed that the earth was flat. But we now know the truth.:) We have exact proof for it now.

So you mean to suggest that this knowledge about earth being round and not flat occured to the Buddhist monks through their meditation or what?? What is the relation between your beliefs in meditation and the scientific discoveries?

But, when you say that Koran is the word of God, as far has I found out, no one can prove it. It will remain a belief or a matter of faith. Its your belief.

Yes, its my faith that Quran is the word of God based upon my belief put on the Prophethood of Mohammad. However, as I said earlier, this belief has logical reasoning attached to it and not through blind believe. All the traits of Mohammad that I described in my earlier postings and much more are circumstantial evidences that support my belief in him. Hence once this beleif is established, then I don't have any hestitations about what is in Quran. On the more, yet my logical mind would not accept anything mentioned in Quran, which is otherwise scientifically proven, to be against the laws of physics. It is this fact that increases my faith on the book more than ever before. Ofcourse, the author of the book, God, do tell us many more things which are beyond human understanding at this time. That doesn't mean Quran is false, but yet we find this Quran encouraging us to discover those unexplainable phenomena through our human wisdom and logic. Not through conjectures or magic but through modern day scientific tools.

I mean, "Sun rises in the east" is a truth. I need not write it down and ask others or God's help to protect my writing.

Though east, west etc are again relative terms and therefore your example may not be applicable over here, anyhow, I think, I got your idea here.

If Koran were the truth then it requires no prop. It means one need not try to protect it.

Your these two statements are wrong in two ways. Firstly, the protection of Quran is not by the humans as God himself has taken the responsiblity of its protection. This fact is mentioned in the Quran itself. So your assumption to present this  argument itself is not correct. No human beings are appointed for its protection. Secondly,  the first statement requires further qualification as I have discussed above that 'No prop' is not a necessary condition for the truth. Truth needs 'prop' for its recognition/discovery otherwise its just a unkown fact like many other unkowns of this uni/multi-verse.

Even if Koran is misinterpreted or gets lost, it shall prevail. Maybe it may be written in a different name and different language.:)

I think, I have already explained this falacy. Without the true guidance, search for the right path would be left at the mercy of Satan, indeed an evil doer (from your point of view, you can understand it opposite of good, assuming our definitions of good are same).

Truth is same for all. If it not same for all, then it is not the truth.

Since you have not identified this term as what do you mean by truth and then truths, I don't want to comment based upon speculations.

You asked what is the significance of Gotama Buddha. Its for you to take. I consider him to be my teacher.:)

I meant, if you say anyone can be Buddha (assuming you meant equal to Buddha in each and every respect), then there may not be a specific need for Gothama. Isn't it? For considering Gotama to be your teacher, you must have some communication with him. I assume this is where his teachings (in the form of a book) comes in. If there is any other channel of communication with him, kindly do let me know so as to avoid speculations.  

Buddha is a word which denotes a person who has awaken to the truth. When Gotama was asked "Who are you? Are you a saint or what?" he simply answered "I am awake".

From where you got this conversation? Is it in the Tripitaka or from which source?

You and I can also be a Buddha. There is no doctrine of Buddha except goodness.:) He taught, whoever wanted to listen, the art of meditation.:)

By doctrine, I meant his teachings, whatever you call it.

What many have experienced have been written in Tripitaka.

What? What do mean by this? You mean Tripitaka is a book about experiences of others? I thought you meant this book is a collection of sayings of Gotama Buddha, collected by his disciples in two languages. But now you seem to provide something else to it. So whose experiences are mentioned in this book. Does human history now them? So here comes the question of authenticity. Do you really have evidence about the autheticity of this book?

About speculative questions and answers, this is the example from Gotama's life. Once a man demanded that the Buddha tell him how the universe began. The Buddha said to him "You are like a man who has been shot with a poison arrow and who, when the doctor comes to remove it, says 'Wait! Before the arrow is removed I want to know the name of the man who shot it, what clan he comes from, which village he was born in. I want to know what type of wood his bow is made from, what feathers are on the end of the arrow, how long the arrows are, etc etc etc.' That man would die before all these questions could be answered. My job is to help you to remove the arrow of suffering from yourself"

Is this all mentioned in Tripitaka or what is your source of this info? And if Tripitaka contains the experiences of others as well, then how do you know that this is infact the experience of Gotama and not any other Buddha?

He means to say, our first aim is to know the true nature of everything and then ask such questions. Creation of the universe, start of life etc. are the questions to be asked to a scientist.:)

What? You mean to say that your truth is seperate from what the scientist discover? This is really strange especially once all your examples about Quran were related to science etc. Isn't it? And now you are avoiding answering them yourself? This is extremely not understood logic.

I dont know about Varna(caste) system. I dont know that Gotama rose against Hindus as you said.

I said he rose against hindu varna system and not against Hindus.

I think its not true. In fact excepting Hindus no one ever helped us. They allowed Buddhism to florish. Infact Gotama was a Hindu.

Yes, I think, I remember bharatiya mentioning this that Gotma was a Hindu. This is why I asked if you also believe in the hindu scriptural books that existed before Gotma or what? Also, it was in this regard that the teachings of Gotma must provide some denounciation of this Varna system, if he really raised against it (as per claims of bharatiya). I you don't know, kindly don't bother to dig much about it as I just passed a cursory remarks from our previous dialogue on this topic.

Buddhists were driven out of India by the invading Moslems.

I am not aware of this? Anyhow, though they might be Moslems aggressors and depending upon politicl motives they might have done this, but that is not what Islam teaches us. 

Buddha statues of Afganistan have been destroyed. But they havent destroyed our belief.

Destruction of precious heritage of a culture is bad, really bad, but isn't it different than the destruction of the idols to whom people worship? I am very clear that I denounce both of these kind of destructions. No question about it. However, out of curosity, which kind of destruction make you feel greived more than the other?

It is where moth and rust do not consume and where thieves do not break through and steal.:)

But how do see the act when we see these statutes of Gotama Buddha in the western museums? What do you call it? A theft, steal, or a letimate way of preservation of an art?

By bondage I meant the suffering we see all around.

This is again a sweeping statement. I could understand a human like Gotama struggling against human created sufferings, but what about those suffereing which are created by nature and are definitely beyond human domain. Take for example victims of Tsunami or Tornedos etc.

You asked that did Gotama say that everyone can be Buddha. He said that everyone can be like him. Buddha is like a title. Just like Lama. Gotama was a Prince. His name was Siddharta Gotama. As he was the awakened one, people called him Gotama Buddha or Gotama the awakened one.:) It is written in Tripitaka. Anyway it need not be written. Every Buddhist knows about Gotama. Even all Hindus know about Gotama.

Of course they must be knowing him through his sayings preserved in written form, otherwise whatelse could be so accurate system that poeple would still know about Gotama without mixing his personality or his sayings with other Buddhas came after him?

Meditation means continuous contemplation on a one thing.  That one thing can be anything.:) The purpose is, it does tremendous good to everyone not only for the person who does it but also the people about that person. Any real knowledge comes through meditation.

Ofcourse, by now, atleast you would like to exclude all scientific knowledge from your definition of "real knowledge". Isn't it? Then what else is left? I mean what other knowledge are you refering to over here? A spiritual knowledge? A mystical knowledge? A magical knowledge? or what?

We do not deny the presence of God nor accept it nor are indifferent to it.:)

From where this understanding comes in? Is it written in Tripitaka (means sayings of Gotama) or is it from philosophies developed by later Buddhas of Buddhaism and included in Tripitaka or some other source? 

It is left for us to understand. And we do not pray to Buddha. We may meditate on him or his good qualities. We adore Buddha and we thank him for whatever he has done to us.:) If you say that Islaam is based on belief that Koran is the word of God and that the proof is that because Koran cannot be said except God, then I am not at all satisfied.:(

I think I have explained it in detail above.

Reading some of Koran I feel that God is mean in saying that we have to obey him.

Which portion/verse of Quran are you refering to? So let us read it togather and see if I can understand it any differently than yours. 

I dont understand then the purpose of free will.:(

The whole purpose of creation of human being is related with free will. With free will, we can either select bad or select good. With satan being evil, his endevour is to misguide humanity, however, with God's help in the form of his guidance, we can choose to do good and avoid the traps of evil bad.  I can further explain it to you as we go by reading Quran. 

I found on the internet Moslems claiming that Islaam is the true religion. I find it to be superstition people go round and round the Caabaa and drinking water of Zamzam. My friends say that its a ritual kind of thing. But I find it to be superstitios. I was surprised to even see an entire website dedicated to defame Buddhism by a Moslem. www.islamandbuddhism.com . Its very bad of such people.:(

Ofcourse without understanding a bit of it, I can understand how the others may have their views about our practices etc. However, for now, suffice is to say that these could be anything but not superstition. There is no room for superstition is Islam. You can find such things in other polytheistic relegions but not in Islam.

Peace and greetings,

"I want to know from the basics of Islaam without using the phrases like "word of God" or "last Prophet" because such phrases lead to disbelief not only me but many people around the world."

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone will be able to direct you to what you are seeking. The reason that Muslims follow that Quran is they believe it to be the word of God (Allah). The reason that Muslims follow the example of the Holy Messenger is that they have come to the conclusion that he is the last and final messenger of God. If you cannot even commit to whether or not you believe in God (regardless of what Buddism says about this), then you certainly will not be able to understand even the most basic tenet of Islam, on which all other beliefs and practices are based. The foundation of Islam is "La illaha illAllah, Muhammad an rassolillah" (There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God).

Every complex thing that you will find has a more simple idea(s) that compose it. If you want to understand the basics of Islam (I assume you mean the basic beliefs and practices), you must begin with the most basic concept, which is the certainty of the existence of God. I cannot teach you Calculus until you understand that if A=B then B=A.

Peace.  

Salam alakum Br. Ahmad (AhmadJoyia),

I must say that I admire your dedication. I have read other postings by you and I wish I had the energy to address our other "brothers and sisters in humanity" in such a detailed way. By the way, where do you live in the U.S. (just want to know city and state, if you feel comfortable). In case you are wondering, I'm in L.A.(Los Angeles, not Louisianna).

Salam.

varshaken wrote: < http-equiv="content-" content="text/;charset=UTF-8"> Hi Zaki, Hi Joyia!!!!! Thank you very much for replies. I have pointed out already that we do not deny God. If you are interested, you can see what Buddha has said about God ... http://reluctant-messenger.com/God_buddha.htm .

This is website is wonderfull. It shall give me an opportunity to better understand buddhaism without raising basic questions that may irritate sometime. But ofcourse would definitely need your help to understand them, may they look basic to you. 

I am sorry that we will find only a few books of our religion over the internet. And your concept and our concept are totally different.

The website says Buddha was hindu and thus believed in Vedas. He even talked about Brahman and negated the false beleives of people in the concept of Ishwara. I think, it is this concept of Brahman mentioned in Vedas, that I considered it to be quite near to our understanding about Allah (God). In this sense, our religions are not very far off from each other. Only if we don't want to see it, then its totally a different thing. 

And I dont want to follow your concept, I am totally satisfied with my concept.:) I want to know about Islaam, I dont want to discuss about Buddhism.:) Concept of God is itself speculative and requires a clear mind to understand.

No one is compelling anyone. There is no compulsion in faith. Isn't it? Then why to worry about it? Relax, and let us travel along and see how we mutually benefit from this discussion.

Mr. Zaki, you were saying that our parents will not allow us to get into danger. But they are our parents. They are human beings like us so think like us. But if God is our Father or Mother then you are trying to categorize him.

Though I thought bro Zaki would have clearified your misunderstanding in his reply, however, I think, his example is more of an anology of love of God to His creation as we human understand love of parents for their children and not equating parents with God. No need to take literal meanings here. Analogies are given to make an easy understanding with regard to the common human experiences. Literal understanding of these is where the whole problem lies. As I went through some of the portions of Gospel of Buddha and simultaneous commentary/explanation by someone (probably by the author who is anonymous to me), I do find same literal understanding being repeated i.e. taking literal meanings out of Buddha's analogical examples. Anyway, I think its a good start and see how we understand each other's point of view.

Mr. Joyia, I feel offended when you say that you appreciate the characteristics of Buddhism. Buddhism is much older than Islaam and much more based on reasoning. It developed in a well structured and thriving cities of the sub-continent. It has a perfect base though it does not have as much following as Islaam.

My brother, why would you feel offended if I am simply praising some good virtues of your religion (according to your sayings)? And why are you refering to old (historic) vs new religions kind of comparison between the two? Are you sure you are reading my reply or what? I never did that or may be I am missing something here?

I have told you that truth is for us to find out instead of someone finding out for us and writing it down. I am able to see your line of reasoning. You have already denied whatever I said, whatever I am saying and whatever I say. As I can see after reading your entire posts, your first premise is denial of whatever I say.

Ok, I see what you mean here by truth. In this sense, the term 'truth' has been used any observed entity that was ever existent. However, allow me take a step further in this direction and say that this truth may or may not be ever be observable. If this truth relates to physical world, it would be ever observable (thus measureable and repeatable) and if it relates to metaphorical world it may not be observable (thus not measureable nor repeatable). For physical world, special people (like sceintist etc) and not common people are needed to understand the reality of that truth. For example, though the gravitation was ever existent and ever observable by almost everyone, it was only when Newton provided his theory and logic to understand the reality of gravitation, that we now know what actually it is . Thus the importance of this person, in this case, Newton, can't be undermined. Yes, I agree with you, if Newton would not have discovered its reality, probably someone else would have done it; but when and how, is only debateable but not an issue. The reason why I say is because knowledge in this world is a  commulative positive phenomena (increases with passage of time). Sooner or later all these physical truths would ultimately be discovered. However, the same is not true for the 'Truth' pertaining to spiritual world. Simply because this is not observable and thus not measurable nor repeatable. Though, the spiritual truth is same, and we as Muslims believe that this Truth has been explained by many individuals (thousands of messangers) to patch up for in-between the nonobservable and observable, it varied in the form of variations among relegions. This is simply because the spiritual knowledge remained negative commulative (ever decreasing with time) except for the case of Islam (I shall later show how it is exception with Islam). The spirtual knowledge is solely dependant upon that single person (a messanger of God we say) who existed in a particular time of history and in a specific place on earth, simply because the spritual Truth is not observable by everyone. It is for this reason, that after his death, this knoweldge got negative commulation in the oceanic flow of history over that that period of time and place. People forgot the actual guidance (knowledge) by not taking care of it and went into innovations through theories developed based on no knowldge about spiritual truth as it was not observable to them. Now let us consider the case of Islam, in which, like other messangers, Prophet Mohammad brought this knowledge about the spritual truth to the human beings. However, the distinction between this knowldge and the others was the preservation of this knowldge in the shape of Quran. Since Quran claims to be preserved from the day of its being known to humans, this knowldge can't be said to be negatively commulative if not commulative. It is for this reason, we consider (through this knowledge) that this person (Prophet Mohammad) was the last person who got this status of explaining the spiritual Truth since his explanations (Quran and his own sayings) are well preserved through the process of physical truth (Quran: as it was written down from the day one, and sayings of Mohammad: through the science of hadith collection). So there is no requirement for another messanger to bring the same knowledge that already exists with humans. Now one may argue about this 'requirement' condition etc, but as I said earlier, that this is a non-issue with people who are not atheists. I think that God has created everything in this uni/multi-verse for a specific purpose and nothing without it. So, for me, this requirement or purpose is a necessary condition for any such person to come. It will be useful to say, in the same context of several thousands of such messanger came on earth, implies that Islam may not be the only way to this Truth (not a necessary condition) but the straight path to this Truth (a recommended condition). Quran is replete with verses where the people of the Book (Jews and Christians etc) have been addressed specifically and to all people in general, to come to term and realize that there is only one Truth (God) and nothing but the only truth (only one God). Rest of the details are just the secondary things. This is the basic essance of Quran.

And even if I try hard and even prove you my powers which I got through meditation or ask my friends to prove them you will just deny it saying it to be a sorcery.:) This was what exactly told by Buddha and even Jesus.

I am not at all interested in your powers especially if it is not explainable through physical truth. I am sure you are not claiming to be Gotama or Jesus. Are you???  

And please do not ask about hypnotism, magic etc. We do not deal with such things though such things can be done through meditation.

So, you agree, there could be different kinds of meditaions. Therefore, what Mohammad did in his meditation, may or may not be the same as you know of it. Isn't it?

Such things lead to disbelief rather than what we want. And what is mind concentration? I never heard of such thing...

Disbelief of what especially, if the end result is same? (asking just to know your view on it). Also, I think, if I am not wrong, the origion of so called 'black magic' is found from some medieval hindu culture and which is, probably, still existant in some parts of India. It is for this reason that I needed clarification and now you have cleared it from Buddhism point of view. Thanks.

I didnt say that Tripitaka's contents are in Buddhists minds or brains or whatever. I say that even if anyone denies a truth, it does not cease to be a truth. Truth is what always exists.

Now I got a better picture of it, but then you didn't answer my related comment on this understanding, i.e. Truths (both spiritual as well as physical) needs to be explained (discovered) by someone. This don't automatically become obvious otherwise they wouldn't have remained unexplainable (undiscovered). For their discovery only special people are needed. Not every human is a scientist nor every human being is a Gotama or Mohammad.

If all of the works from Newton to Einstein get lost, gravitation does not cease to work. Gravitation was existent even before Newton discovered.

I think, you got confuse here. The question is not about Truth itself, but about observable (and thus measureable and repeatable) or non observable Truth. Gravitation is an observable truth and people knew it even before Newton gave explanation of it. However, it was only Newton, through commulative knowledge of science and logic, that he was able to explain it.

So if Gotama would not have existed then there would have been another who would have discovered them.:)

Though, I don't disagree with you over here because of my explanation of many messangers and their requirement, but I think, you are denying the great spritual powers of your own teacher. This is strange. Ofcourse you would now understand the difference between physical knowledge and spiritual knowledge.

I think you said you dont know about Buddhism then how do you know what we practice? You really dont know. I need not tell you what is good and what is love.

Selfish love is not love and when you cannot be good to others, you cannot be good to yourself. You see, you are trying to deny me.

Only because you didn't define yourself properly as to what stand are you going to take, whether atheist or religious. But from your reply it is more clear now that you would like to have a religious understanding than anything else. 

Buddha has given different doctrines but I am as simple as it could be as we can ourselves find his doctrines without even reading them.

I hope you don't get simplistic from being very simple that you may start giving an impression of an athiest. As I read from the website, it appears that Brahman was an essential concept onto which Gotama believed and rebuked other gods and dieties to be mere illusions.

There are different kinds of meditations but all require concentration and I dont know on what Muhamad concentrated. But I know for sure he meditated in a mountain cave.

Yes, there must be different kinds of meditations depending upon numerous factors. Therefore, it would be naive to understand meditation by Mohammad as same as any other form of meditation that you know of.

His disciples authored the Tripatika. And I need not tell their names.

This is one very important question, my brother. I definitely like to know these disciple before even I open this book. Do you know them (if you know them) through faith or history? And who is the author of Gospel of Buddha?

What is your line of reasoning when you say what language Gotama used to speak? I dont feel it anything important. There were many languages in India during Gotama's time. Sanskrit used to be the medium with which people of different languages used to communicate. Gotama being a Prince knew both the languages. His people's language was Pali. And for your kind information, Tripitaka was written in both Sanskrit and Pali. In sanskrit it was called Tripitaka and in Pali it was called Tipitaka. Buddhism is not based on assumptions. So please dont try to assume anything. Question directly.:)

Just curosity to know the facts rather than from fiction. What do you mean that sanskrit used to be the medium between the people of different languages? You mean different spoken languages but same written language kind of a thing? Then, in this case, I am interested in the written language (sanskrit or pali) in which Tripatika was first recorded. But as you have indicated, as per my understanding, different authors (disciples of Gotama Buddha) wrote about him in both the languages. Some preferred Sanskrit and others preferred Pali. If this be the case, then both books must be mutually exclusive. That is further to say that both should be regarded as complimentary to each other and not replacement of another. So, I would definitely like you to give a more detailed account of these books to better understand them when referring them in our conversation or other wise.

I doubt you have any Buddhist friends.

Any specific reason for this doubt? What proof shall make you satisfied? Anyhow this is not an actual issue here.

What you are talking about concentration and sleep is giving work to subconscious mind. Anyway I dont what to talk about it either. Please dont ask me anything about truth etc. I said you will find it out yourself and you have to find it out yourself.

I hope I have clearified your misconceptions about 'Truth' now. Let me know if you have any further questions or arguments to discuss about it.

I think eternal truths and laws need no proofs.

Given my above stated explanation, this is just an overstatement, if not false statment.

You are talking about historical proofs. And Buddhism, just like Hinduism are not historical religions. As I have pointed out, some say they are not religions.

So what are they if not historical? Don't confuse with the word "Relegion" as your website atleast do take it as a relegion. Anyhow, my point is not focused on what you call it but what you practice it. So, how is it known through, if not through history?

I think you are confusing yourself from whatever you say. I see you are trying hard to deny me.:) All the best!!!!!

I can't  link up your statement to my response. Kindly any understandable method to link up your replies to my statements. I shall appreciate it. Thanks

When I said "we have exact proof for it now" I said you me and everyone in the world have the proof. I didnt say Buddhists have. This is the last time I will talk about my religion.:)

You see, you have again used the word "my relegion". Kindly don't get involved with this term and let us move on. Atleast I don't have the proofs of most of the things of physical world what to talk about spiritual world. Therefore, definitely like you to show, atleast some of them to make us understand as what do you mean by them.

You cannot say what are the qualities which describe the greatness of a man. You say that you cannot explain those qualities in this discussion.

I said I don't want to be boastful about Prophet Mohammad by using all superlative adjectives of english language to show him an extra-ordinary person. This is left for you to read from thousands of the website.

I "appreciate" that you do not have blind beliefs. Its so narrow minded thinking when you say that a man like Muhamad will not be born again.I want those "logical proofs" which prove that such a man cannot be born and what makes Koran the word of God.

I hope I have thoroughly answered your questions above. However, still open to hear more from you. 

I wonder what are scientific proofs to do with religious beliefs.

Circumstantial scientific proofs to validate the religious bliefs are a good indicators of truthfulness of one's faith. I gave you an example also in my previous post regarding discovering of USA, if you recall. These tools includes and not limited to, using modern scientific techniques to validate the authenticity of holy scriptures, or similar artifacts on which people have mere faith.These could also be independant validity of historic events mentioned in them as well as the known authorships of these scriptures independent from the scriptures themselves,etc, etc.

So you believe in magic also. Thats interesting.

I may added a little, same as your understanding about it,  that I believe in it that they lead to disbelief. Therefore always a sinful practice.

:) Modern day scientific tools :) What are those?

Just provided you the examples above.

Thats the biggest blashphemy I can find when you say that God himself has taken responsibility of Koran. Its like, God himself is having doubt that someone or something will destroy it.:)))))))))

Two answers to this. 1). Its not me but Quran says about it (a matter of belief). 2). We know everything in is world is created by God and given to humans to live there in. Fact remain that humans have been very careless about them. I am sure you wouldn't ask me examples here, but millions of human history full of wars and hence destruction is just one example. Also the fate of earlier divine scriptures is also a matter of fact with us atleast. So, in the light of my explanation, this point would rather get more clear, that preservation of Quran along with is authenticity is an important virtue.

I was saying about the same thing, if it were the truth then God need not protect it.

Quran is not a 'Truth' itself but an explanation about "Truth". It was for this reason that I was so careful to be specific as what do you mean by "Truth". One can't mix the two different things to mean the same thing. I hope we can avoid such misusages of word "Truth". Gravity being Truth was known well before Newton explained it. It was his theory "I may call it his koran" that explained the reality about this "Truth".

Who or what is Satan? did you mispell it? If you mean to say Saturn, then its a planet and it does not do anything to us.

Simply understand that its an evil entity that God created to test the humans. It is for this test where "free will' come into play and good against evil is need to be discerned. For complete details,  kindly refer Chapter 2 of Quran. Let me know if you don't understand something.

And I really did not understand what is the greatness of Muhamad. You are just repeating the same statements.

I think I have not repeated this again in my reply. Anyhow, I have already answered this question earlier.

Please be clear and let not get into comparitive religion. There is little to compare your and my religion.

Well, my brother, I have always made effort to be clear, but again I am just a human being. So do excuse me but you can ask. Right?? Then why not to clearify? Regarding comparison of religion, this just another example where you used word "relegion" to mean "Buddhaism" and not only "Islam". Anyhow, I have already answered you on this earlier in this reply. 

I want to know from the basics of Islaam without using the phrases like "word of God" or "last Prophet" because such phrases lead to disbelief not only me but many people around the world. Please explain me what are the practical purposes of following Islaam without comparing with other religions. Thanks for everything. Varshaken, the Samurai.

I think I have fully answered about your comments for "word of God" and "last Prophet". If you still have any arguments or questions, do not hestiate to ask. Regarding practical purposes of Islam, you need to ask specific question. However I may provide some input. Though the list is long, but suffice is to say that this is the relegion for which you don't have to (I would rather say one should not) go to forests to know about the Truth. Islam is our day to day life. For this purpose our every action is accountable. From our most private moments to our public life, each and every action is our worship. If we do it for good, it would result in good rewards, if we do it for evil purposes, it would result in bad rewards. Both in this life as well as in the life hereafter. Our five times daily prayer is our meditation during which we present ourself to our Allah (the most powerfull and the most merciful). The timmings of these prayers are spread over the whole day, beginning with the fajr prayer before the sun rise, then the Zuhr prayer close to noon time, then the Asr prayer, in the afternoon, then the Maghrib prayer after the sunset, and finally the Isha prayer in the night just before going to the bed. Five times meditation and that to daily. The more one do it with concentration more closer he gets to knowing the Truth ( Allah).

Though I have tried to answer all your comments and questions but if not do remind me and I shall get back to you. However, I do note that you have not replied to all most half of my questions raised in my last posting. Do I understand that you agree to them? Atleast this is what a common sense says. But it could be that you don't consider them worth answering, but then atleast you may mention it so, to avoid making me misunderstanding about your positon on them.

Ali Zaki wrote: Salam alakum Br. Ahmad (AhmadJoyia), I must say that I admire your dedication. I have read other postings by you and I wish I had the energy to address our other "brothers and sisters in humanity" in such a detailed way. By the way, where do you live in the U.S. (just want to know city and state, if you feel comfortable). In case you are wondering, I'm in L.A.(Los Angeles, not Louisianna). Salam.

My Dear Brother,

Thanks for your compliments, however I don't deserve them. These are nothing  as compared to what people write since I am not a scholar but a lay man. Therefore need more words to explain same thing for which they use just a single word. Presently, I am living in Lansing, MI but don't know about future. Kindly pay may salam to all Los Angelees (is this what you call it?). Regards

Salam again to all,

I would like to bring this thread to the attention of the people again. I know it veered of a bit into Buddhism and these things, but then again, the main topic of this discussion is "Great Love for Jesus led me to Islam"

My Dear Bro Varshaken,

Before I begin replying to your response, I would like to bring to your attention some of the pertinent questions that are still outstanding. I hope you would give due priority to answer them as well.

1. Kindly let me know the names of the authors of both Tripitika as well as Gospel of Buddha (If they are known)?

2. What is the original language of these books or are there two different accounts of these books in Sanskrit as well in Pali languages? If the two were written by different authors then which one was written before the other? 

3. Why do you say Buddhism, like Hinduism, are not historical relegions?

Now coming to your response:

varshaken wrote: Hi Mr. AhmadJoyia!!! Thank you very much for answering me with patience. As I have said, I want to discuss only Islaam but you have brought me into comparitive religion.:) I may not answer all of your questions. And definitely I will not answer about the Truth. You can take it to be the spiritual truth.

I think, I need to understand Buddahism as much as you want to know about Islam. So, its kind of mutual benefit to both of us. Isn't it? Kindly do educate me about your ideas and faith etc. However, if someone don't know about anythink in his faith, an open confession is more appreciated than ignoring the question; as it may imply that one is simply agreeing to other's presumptions.

I did not understand what you said about negative cumulation.

Here negative comulation means decreasing with time.

First you said you dont know anything about Buddhism. Then you asked me about the elaborative practices which come in present day Buddhism. Now you say that religions vary because the spiritual knowledge remained negative commulative.

Isn't it a gradual process. The more you told me, the more I learned it. Regarding elaborative practices, these are my understanding of Buddhaism from my small encounters to this relegion through media etc. Ofcourse I have heard about Deli Lama, but not much and definitely need much of your help to understand his status in Buddahism (especially from the consideration that he was so choosen right in his childhood). Is it kind of birth right or what?

At one time you said, "However, the same is not true for the 'Truth' pertaining to spiritual world. Simply because this is not observable and thus not measurable nor repeatable." Later you say, "Circumstantial scientific proofs to validate the religious bliefs are a good indicators of truthfulness of one's faith." So you mean to say that religious beliefs are different from spiritual truths.

No, I am not trying to distinguish between relegion and spiritual beleifs. All I am saying is that though the spiritual truth is not an observable entity, however, the medium (or the human messanger) through which this is known to us (all humans) can be a good indicator for the validation of this spiritual truth. He is the primary validation source for the people of his time and his message (if well preserved) acts as a validation source for all later generations in the time of history. It is for this reason that the authors of these scriptural writtings become so much important since their history and hence their relation with the actual messanger forms a part of physical truth (observable that is to say 'verifiable'). For example, the name of 4 Christian gospels of NT were told to belong to human history as those who were among the 12 disciples of Jesus. However, it is now, through modern scholarly research (physical truth), that we know that the actual authors of these four gospels are not known and hence are anonymous writtings. Hence the faith (i.e. the spiritual truth) on these authors to have written these books through inspiration from God is not a valid argument. Hence these books don't provide the same authenticity as the people in the modern world would like to have with these books. It is in this context that the authors as well as the original language of these gospels must be ascertained through physical truth and not through spiritual truth.

You talk about hypnotism, black magic etc. when we are talking about religion. If you do not know about any religion, how can you know that it has "elaborative practices" and its "spiritual knowledge remained negative commulative"?

I stated this based upon my own limited knowledge that I came across with some relegions other than Islam. I would like you to negate me by providing your evidence for the case of Buddhaism. Surely, I shall be happy to revise my concepts/comments.

You are so confident that black magic "originated" in some medieval Hindu culture. But Buddhism did not originate in medieval Hindu culture. Gotama was born more than 2500 years ago. But I want to know how do you know that black magic "originated" in Hindu culture. Are you an Indian?

Hindus claim their relegion to be millions of years before Jesus. Also, we now know (from your website as well as from from your own comments later in this particular reply) that Gotama was indeed a hindu prince. Isn't it? or you mean to say Buddhaism originated much before him? I am not an Indian, but one doesn't have to be indian to know something about India.

So I can clearly see that in order to deny me, you are resorting to deny yourself. Anyway thats not at all a problem. Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But rest assured, Truth shall prevail.

My brother, I want you to educated me through evidence and logical arguments, that is the only purpose and medium for discussing with you. Yes, I would like to let the truth be prevailed. Amen.

You said that Muhamad never meditated or did such a kind of thing as meditation. But from his biography from... http://muhammad.net/bio/profbio.html "16. It is from this moment that we find Muhammad becoming more and more absorbed in spiritual meditations. Like his grandfather, he used to retire during the whole month of Ramadan to a cave in Jabal-an-Nur (mountain of light). The cave is called `Ghar-i-Hira' or the cave of research. There he prayed, meditated, and shared his meagre provisions with the travellers who happened to pass by."

I never said that Mohammad never meditated. I only said that his meditation might not be same as of yours, as you yourself admitted in the variance of the kinds of meditations.

The problem with the Christians and the Moslems is that the Christians believe that world began sometime around 4000 B.C. and Moslems think that the times when Muhamad lived were ancient times.

As you yourself said, "no iliterate person that too 1400 years ago, can dictate such a book as we have in the form of Quran". So you consider that 1400 years means very old......

Yes, especially in the context of means of communication and information exchange there is more than two order of magnitude difference. Not only then, I do know that even now in the present age of modern communication and information age with all the resources available to any illeterate person, he simply can't do it. By 1400 years, you can imagine being in the history of time before the machine age. Ordinary means of communication were still primitive and the fastest being the horse ride on the land. The comparison is not on literary level as Arabs of that time were quite proud of their poetic qualities and thus Quran was a big challange for them which they never able to respond to it.

But Buddhism grew in an environment where there were many written languages with a wonderful script and grammar. Buddhism grew in thriving cities. First Buddhists were Hindu converts. Hindus themselves being a defensive civilization and peace loving people and with a good knowledge themselves they encouraged everything which is progressive. They knew that there are many different paths to reach God. Gotama was born 500 years before Christ and 1000 years before Muhamad. So according to you it is definitely ancient so you think that definitely such beautiful books cannot be written at that time or even if they were written they were either amended or distorted in the modern times to suit the present conditions. And even if Moslems were to consider Buddha as a prophet, then you consider that the present day Buddhists are not following what Buddha has said or not following the path laid by Buddha.

Probably yes simply because you have not authenticated these books as yet, despite my several requests. Moreover, though I may respect Buddha, as per your statements being your teacher, I don't know if he was among the sent messangers of God.

The basic tenet of Buddhism is non-voilence. That tenet is still existent in every Buddhist. Few Buddhists are voilent. Then how can you say "negative commulative"?

I don't put my opinion about a particular relegion based on people's habits or actions in that relegion. I do note your concern on this as well. So, let us not discuss people, but the scritural doctrines with references. If you have a evidence for the preservation of your scriptures, I shall be happy to look into it.

And dont use heavy words like "rebuked", "rose against" etc. Gotama was the epitome of peace and non-voilence. Just see how people are getting mad in Afganistan about desecration of Koran. This is the same country which allowed the destruction of Buddhist statues. But then did any Buddhist protest it? See how many people were killed in Tibet. But still no Tibetan army was formed or any militia kind of thing was formed. The Dalai Lama did not ask their people to become suicide bombers and kill every Chinese. Then how can you say "negative commulative"?

I am sorry for the wrong selection of words. Other than this I think I have already answered about your comments that I don't want to look at the relegions from its adherent's practices but from their scriptural doctrine.

I have read and heard so many times that Islaam means peace. But what do you see in the world? If Koran is only one then why do you have different sects like Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi etc. ?  In that case Islaam is "negative commulative". Isnt it?

Same goes to Islam. Don't judge it from the actions of its people but read Quran yourself. Infact, all these different sects agree on the authenticity and authority of Quran as being their primary source of guidance. Hence no "negative commulative". Most of the differences in these sects comes in the collection of personal sayings of Mohammad and later day scholars in Islam to interpret them in their daily life. And this is not an issue under discussion.

You said that physical truths are a "positive commulative". But physical laws are infinite because they were created by infinite God. Please dont try to limit the glory of God. We will be discovering them for eternity. We will definitely not reach a technological singularity. But then Buddhists and even Hindus know that even spiritual laws are infinite.

Kindly don't confuse between "knowledge of explanation about physical truths" and the "physical truth" itself. Its not physical truth itself but the "knowledge about physical truth" which is positive commulative. Yes, physical laws themselves might be infinite however, I didn't suggest that humanity shall prolong to infinity as well. In fact we do believe in the cut off time predetermined by God and we call it the day of judgement. Till this day of judgement, this knowledge shall remain on its course of positive commulative.

Just see this Moslem website, http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/commonFAQ.htm ............ It says that "3. All previous reveletions sent only for their people". So it means that spiritual truths have been sent for years. Does that mean God always changes his plans. Does that mean that God is not confident of his Creation?

No, it doesn't mean this. Message of Islam is not new. Infact all the messangers of God brought the same message to recognize one God and only one God. Some rituals among these nations might be different, depending upon in which era of time and place they were revealed, but the basic principle was always the same. It is for this reason, that Quran provides very broad guidelines for its readers to recognize Allah and obey His law. However, the details of as how these commands are to be performed (i.e. implementation of the law), comes primarily from the teachings of Prophet Mohammad.

There are many religions came into existence after Islaam. The Bahai, the Sikhism and many others. You may say that it is free will.

Yes, it is this free. I think now you are able to pickup the line.

What is your explanation of the miracles done by Buddha and Jesus? Your certain answer is "how can we know the mind of God?" or in some cases you say that "God sends such men to do miracles."..... This is called "naming". And everyone knows naming is not answering.:)

I have not heard about the miracles of Buddha, however, Jesus did perform many miracles as we know it from Quran. Of course only humans can perform miracles. Isn't it? Otherwise for God, these things are worthless what to call them miracles. What do you mean by "naming"? I haven't heard of it before?

Why do you say that spiritual truths cannot be percieved by everyone? Did Allaah say so in the Koran? If they cannot be percieved by everyone, I wonder there is no purpose of religion. Every living being can percieve the spiritual truths.

I only said that spiritual truth is not observable and hence not measureable nor repeatable. Therefore it needs faith to recognise it. Do you want to suggest contrary to this, most welcome.... Kindly give any suitable examples.

You asked me about the writers of Tripitaka, there are many writers and I know all their names. The list is lengthy.

Good, so the list is so long that no need to mention it.....Hmm!!! So, you mean all the disciples of Gotama produced their own account which finally was collected and compiled in the form of a book? This must be an interesting book to look at where so many authors sharing their own experiences with their teacher. But were these all authors of Tripitika were the direct disciples of Gotama Buddha or were they came generations later after the Gotama? Secondly what about the author of gospel of Buddha?

You asked about Pali language. I wonder that you are still in the 7th century.

This is indeed an interesting comment. Though, I am ashamed of my knowledge but definitely enjoyed it. Definitely my comments were based upon my limited knowledge where there are some languages which are written differently but are same in spoken form.

When I say that english is the medium between me and my friends but my language is Sinhalese, does that mean that Sinhalese is written in english? Sanskrit was the lingua franca, means its the medium of communication between different kingdoms. It was the official language. Koran is called koran in every language. But its not with the Tripitaka. Tripitaka has different names in different languages. But then Pali was the official language of communication between the Buddhist nations for more than 1000 years until the occupation of british. We consider Pali to be sacred language and India to be a sacred land.

So you mean every Buddhist nation has its own collection of sayings of Gotama Buddha, depending upon the national origin of its Buddhist author and his encounter with Gotama Buddha in a specific time and place. Am I correct? That is also to say that there was no specific scribe appointed to pen down the sayings of Gotama. Am I correct?

You said that Satan is an evil entity created by God to test humans. Thats interesting...... But why would God want to test us?

Given the free will, humans shall be abe to decide what to choose. With this free will, only the sincere and believing humans shall find their true reward with their God.

You said, "this is the relegion for which you don't have to (I would rather say one should not) go to forests to know about the Truth." Are you refering to some religion? I never heard of any religion which says that its an obligation to go to forests. Or am I missing some point, since Muhamad was born in a desert country where there are no forests so he did not know of forests so God did not saw fit to tell him go to forests............kind of.............?

"Forest" over here implies away from the normal civic life may it be in deserts, or even in jungles. Yes there are certain relegions which calls for their preists to observe celibacy etc for their spiritual purification. There is no such concept in Islam. Rather, it lays emphasis on living a balanced life.

I know this, "For this purpose our every action is accountable. From our most private moments to our public life, each and every action is our worship."  I have read Gita and this is known as Karma Yoga. You said, "If we do it for good, it would result in good rewards, if we do it for evil purposes, it would result in bad rewards." This is called Karma or Kamma. Karma is the Sanskrit word and Kamma is the Pali word, both mean the same.:)

Are you suggesting that you believe in Gita? I am really confused? That is why asked in the very begining of our discussion to let me know when and how do you differ from hinduism but you never repleid. Hence again you are mingling up my understanding about Buddhism. Kindly present a little more clear picture of this aspect of Buddhaism.

You said,"Both in this life as well as in the life hereafter." You mean, you believe in rebirth?

Life hereafter means after our result shall be announced on the day of judgement, we shall be awarded eternal life based on our deeds done in this life. Good deeds shall lead to heaven and bad deeds to the hell.

You said, "Our five times daily prayer is our meditation during which we present ourself to our Allah." What do you think of in your mind when you pray? I mean what do you pray? If you meditate, what do you meditate on?

I think I already mentioned it that we present our self in front of Allah in our thoughts. If we are not able to achieve this thought then, however, we surely know that atleast He is all seerer and all hearer. In our prayers we praise Him and beg Him to keep us on the right track, the track of those who were blessed by Him and not of those who got His anger.

You said,"The more one do it with concentration more closer he gets to knowing the Truth ( Allah)." On what do you concentrate?

We focus ourself on our sayings if we are offering it alone. However, often on the wordings of our leader during the congregrtional prayers. So that we must really mean it as what we say it. So our prayers are kind of our pledge to God to avoid the path of evil doers and find the path of the rightous people in our day to day life. We don't expect a miracle to happen because of our prayers to take us out of our problems in this life, but only through our actions and faith. This prayer then becomes kind of our guardian against evil actions. 

You asked me why I didn't answer the questions you posed.  As you can see, you posed comparitive questions and I dont like to compare religions.

For things you don't like, then how do you wish it to liked by others, for the same very reasons? Also, I didn't ask comparetive relegious questions other than the basics which might be common to all relegions.

And as I have said, you are not seeking to know Buddhism, but seeking to deny it.

Opposite of 'to deny' is 'to accept'. I hope you don't intend to convert me to Buddahism. Do you? I don't think. So, denial shall always be faced by you whenever you talk about Buddhaism on this website. But that is not a bad thing as long as people don't disrespect it. And same is true for Islam or for me. I would naturally expect denial of Islam from you in all your questions, and this is perfectly normal for me. So what to complain about, as long as we respect each others relegion??

As far as I know there is no concept of rebirth in your Islaam. So there is no question of comparing our religions.

Is that all in Buddhaism to talk about? I don't think. By the way in which part or chapter of Tripitika, shall I find this concept of rebirth?

You would have heard about Dalai Lama and Carl Sagan. Dalai Lama is a Buddhist Monk and Carl Sagan is America's best known scientest. Carl Sagan once said,"...in theological discussions with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.

Here Dalai Lama has made an exception for the case of "Tibetan Buddhism". What about others? And why he only talked about Tibetan Buddhism only?

Even, I asked, if it's a really central tenet, like (I searched for an example) reincarnation? Even then, he answered. However, he added with a twinkle - it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation." So if you disprove reincarnation or any other tenet, then its for sure that Buddhism will going to change.:) I think this will answer most of your questions and why I say that our religion is based on reasoning.:)

I don't think so. Rather it has forced me to question the authority of Dalai Lama and his firmness on his faith. What do you think of him? According to my understanding, the response should have been other way round. Scientists deal with physical truth and there is no search by them to reveal the spiritual truth. Hence there is no contradiction in the two at any stage. Science is limited by its applicabiltiy to only observable, measureable and hence repeatable phenomena. Therefore thinking that they would ever encounter spiritual truth in their labs is itself a negation of definition of science.

One more thing to add, I have found many more sites regarding the defamation of Buddhism by Moslems. I am really sadened by them. I dont think that to prove something, one has to disprove others. Such defamation is caused by questioning a handful of Buddhists. It is similar to terming of the whole of Moslems as terrorists because a few of them are terrorists by the Americans. But still, peace to everyone.

I think I have already responded to your comments earlier in my post. I don't want to know about Buddhaism from people's actions but what is written in their scriptures.

I was just going through the internet for Koran as you suggested me and found this interesting piece....  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam /blfaq_islam_quran.htm   ........ http://www.answers.com/koran ....... After thorough reading, I found out that you didnt even have a proper written language. That Arabi is a consonantal language and had seven different systems of consonants and vowels. When you dont even have a proper language, how can you say that Koran's authenticity is intact?

Both of your reference does not provide the information that you have provided here especially with regard to consonants in Arabic language, and hence your conclusions. Kindly reconcile either the references or the comments. However, variation in consonants and vowels is considered as an additional attribute of a language than its handicap. On the more what this (handicap you say) has to do with the authenticity of the Quran?

And it is written that the first "authentic" Koran which you follow now came out around 200 years after Muhamad.

This again is not from the above two references. Kindly reconcile. Here is the description of the second reference of yours " 

Origin and development of the Qur'an

Muslims believe that the wording of the Qur'anic text that we have today is identical to that revealed to Muhammad himself; words of God delivered to Muhammad through Jibreel (Gabriel).

The very word Qur'an is usually translated as "recital," indicating that it cannot exist as a mere text. To be able to perform salat (prayer), a religious obligation in Islam, a Muslim is required to learn at least some suras of the Qur'an (typically starting with the first sura, al-Fatiha, known as the "seven oft-repeated verses," and then moving on to the shorter ones at the end). The more of the Qur'an learned, the better. A person whose recital repertoire encompasses the whole Qur'an is called a Qari' (������) or Hafiz (which translate as "reciter" or "memorizer," respectively). Muhammad is regarded as the first Hafiz.

Muhammad's companions began recording all the suras in writing before Muhammad died in 632; written copies of various suras during his lifetime are frequently alluded to in the traditions. For instance, in the story of the conversion of Umar ibn al-Khattab (when Muhammad was still at Mecca), his sister is said to have been reading a text of surat Ta-Ha, and at Medina, about 65 Companions are said to have acted as scribes for him at one time or another, and he would regularly call upon them to write down revelations immediately after they came."

I hope this would be sufficient to remove all the doubts.

You asked me about the writers of Tripitaka, but you dont even have the exact Koran as told by Muhamad. Thats strange when you ask me such questions when you yourself dont have the exact copy of Koran.

Oh, I see it, that is why you were so hesitent uptill now. Hmm!! So, is that a botheration for my brother? So is it really a tit for tat kind of a game we are playing against each other? I don't think so. Since I am convinced that I am not here convert anyone to Islam so why to hide or speak anything other than the truth? I can't live on anything but the truth. Ofcourse its this truth that shall reveal to itself, whatever I try to hide it. Where ever we go, in our heart of hearts, it would keep haunting us till the time we don't realize and acknowledge about its truthfullness.

Elsewhere I read "99 Beautiful Names of Allah".  Thats strange considering that one should not form an image of God, but can give him names and call them "beautiful names". And that God or Allaah judges on the Judgement Day. Though I dont understand the term Judgement day, I find it strange that God judges. In this case, our belief is better than yours. We believe that God created a spiritual law which takes care of our good and bad deeds. It is called Karma or Kamma. Just as law of gravitation is a physical law, Kamma is a spiritual law. We do not say that God judges, but say that this spiritual law will take care of our doings.

Many and many more questions, so my brother don't mind them as they are for our mutual enhancement of knowledge about each other's faith. First of all, I do see you doing comparison of relegions  despite your own negation of doing it. Secondly, though I do see your statement of one better than the other kind of stuff, but I think that is natural for anyone to consider it like this, otherwise, he would have not believed what he practices. Thirdly, you seem to extract a lot of doctrines from hinduism such as the law of karma or kama, whatever you call it. What is the source of this law in Buddhaism, if not from Vedas of hinduism?

Now coming to your comments about the 99 names and yet refrain from forming an image of Him. As you must have read that these 99 names are the attributes of Allah through which we recognise Him. Being infinite in every capacity, the use 'Al' before each of His name signifies the uniquness and ultimate state of that particular attribute associated to Allah. Again, these are just few of those that God has reveled to us through Quran, by no means, they are a complete list. Hence, it is not wise to bound an infinite being through the finite and limited knowledge of human being.

Why do you find it strange that God judges? In an essence, according to your own description, the law of judgement has been set by God Himself, hence it is He who is enacting the Law. Isn't it? Ofcourse, when we talk about any truth, like the physical truth, we imply the physical law and similarly the spiritual truth, implies spiritual law. It is through this law that Allah commands over everything. Remember what I mentioned earlier that nothing has been created without a purpose. Everything, therefore, must be governed through a law; may it be a physical law or a spiritual law. Again, one has to understand the infinitness only through non-literal understanding of the Quran.

May God bless us to find the path of the truth, the ultimate truth. Amen.

 

 

 

jello wrote: Salam again to all, I would like to bring this thread to the attention of the people again. I know it veered of a bit into Buddhism and these things, but then again, the main topic of this discussion is "Great Love for Jesus led me to Islam"

I did tried to call the attention of the administrators to take this discussion about Buddhaism to another appropriate location, but probably they are busy somewhere else. Therefore, now its kind of hosh posh situation but I can't help it, though I may be worsening it by yet replying to my brother from Buddhaism to his intriguing questions. 

varshaken wrote: < http-equiv="content-" content="text/;charset=UTF-8"> Hi Mr.AhmadJoyia!!!! Thank you for replying me.  I am ever thankful to you for your replies. I will definitely answer your questions. 1st Question:Kindly let me know the names of the authors of both Tripitika as well as Gospel of Buddha (If they are known)? Tripitaka was written by many disciples of Gotama. Some part of it was even written by Gotama himself.

I am sorry, you haven't provided the names of the authors of the Tripitika. Should I consider it anonymous or what?

Regarding "Gospel of Buddha", it is of recent existence and written by a western writer. I havent read it.

Oh, I see. So you don't know if this part of sayings of Gotama ever existed. This is indeed a strange discovery. Moreover, I don't think we can call a translator as a writer. Should we? I don't think so.

2nd Question:What is the original language of these books or are there two different accounts of these books in Sanskrit as well in Pali languages? If the two were written by different authors then which one was written before the other? Whatever was said by Gotama was written by his disciples in Pali as mostly Gotama used to say it in Pali. But it was immediately translated into Sanskrit and sent over to the whole of India as Pali is a local language and Sanskrit is the lingua franca.

Can you specify what this "immediately" refers to? I mean how much time it took to write down everything that Gotama said and then written down? Was there any process/history of canonization done to Tripitka as we do see in case of NT Bible? If yes, can you provide some details of it?

Desciples are just like the reporters of today.

Well, there has to be striking difference between the desciples of Gotama and the reporters of today. Simply because today's reporter may not be the actual witness of any of his repot, but on the other hand that must not be true for these desciples as their report must only be reliable if they were the first hand witness to the teachings of Gotama. Isn't it? 

After Gotama's transition, remember I say transition because he did not die, but left his body at his will. I have read over the internet that Gotama was accidentally poisoned thats why he died, but then he lived many days after he was poisoned.

So, you mean Gotama had control over his death? This is indeed a strange view. Moreover, if had not died, where he had gone leaving his body behind? Is he still alive? What happened to his body after he left it? This needs little more detail. 

So after Gotama's transition, the local kings compiled all of his writings and sayings into one book in both Pali and Sanskrit simultaneously.

So you mean the desciples didn't compile their books but the later generation local kings did this compilation? Can we say this as kind of canonization of these sayings of Gotama and the book now known as "Tripitika" is just the product of this process?

3rd Question:Why do you say Buddhism, like Hinduism, are not historical relegions? "Buddhism" itself is a term which was unknown to the Buddhists then. Rather english itself was unknown. Gotama taught to the people nothing new. It was always there. Remember, Newton, gravitation was always there. What Gotama taught was already prevalent in India. But he just brought it to the masses. There were many Buddhas before Gotama and after Gotama. "Buddha" is a Sanskrit word which means "the enlightened one".

Oh, I never expected that!! So what is the status of Gotama in Buddhaism if his awakening had no real significance except bringing it to masses. Though I do consider this a great task, but not worth of preservation of his sayings in the form of a Tripitika. So, as Gotama was a hindu "khastari", all his knowledge must be based upon the vedas of hinduism, since as per your own accord, he didn't bring any new knowledge nor any new explanation and everything was known to Buddhas before and after him. Therefore, when he brought that knowledge to the masses, we should see an increase in number of buddhas after him and that too all living. In this way, most of the population of the world should have been Buddhas, since the earlier Buddhas are simplying not dying. This is, again, very very strange concepts that I never heard of it. So, kindly do provide more details on it.

Regarding "Hinduism", I dont have much to say, I say its not a historical religion because we dont know when it began.

and, I may like to add to it as well as probably you also know it since you have read Gita, because their itihasa (history) is based on mythology than human history. Isn't it? So, in the same way can we say the same for Buddhaism?

You said, "However, if someone don't know about anythink in his faith, an open confession is more appreciated than ignoring the question; as it may imply that one is simply agreeing to other's presumptions." I dont want to discuss about the Truth because God is the only Truth. Buddha was silent when he was asked about God.

If, as you said, God is the only Truth and Buddha was silent on it, then what else did he explain to the masses that they didn't know about? All else should have been the physical truth (all observable).

It is similar to your opposition to idolatry. His belief is that, no one can talk about God, just like he cannot be given any shape. Its clearly written in Tripitaka about this. He said when you try to say that God created everything and is still creating everything, you are just binding Him because you are giving Him a purpose. God has infinite glory. He said God is the farthest yet the closest. He asked why would anyone say such a thing as worship. If you worship, you are trying to worship with something which is much less than God Himself. No one can worship Him. If you worship Him, you are just degrading Him. God does not want anything from us. He only gives and does not want anything in return. No one can worship God except God Himself.

Hmm!! Probably this must be the reason why people worship idols to immitate their dieties. Isn't it. Atleast they are worshipping someone less than God and yet require help from them. Isn't it the concept self contradicting.

On the other hand, since we know that God has created humans superior to all other of his creation, therefore only God and only God his worthy of our worship. By the way what is worship? As muslims, we believe that what ever we ask to our God is only and only for our own benefit. Definitely God doesn't need our worship. Here is the translation from a small portion of Quran describing God.

112:1	Say: He is God, the One and Only;
112:2	Allah is He on Whom all depend;
112:3	He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112:4	And there is none like unto Him

 

And you say Buddha couldn't say this much? This is not a good reason especially, the concept of 'Brahman' is quite eloquoently defined in the Vedas.

 

Thats the reason I asked what do you do and what you concentrate on when you pray. If you concentrate on an idol, a word, a sound, a feeling, a meaning then you are not worshipping God. You are worshipping what you concentrate on. So as you can see your worship is no good than idol worship. Anyway, why would God want anything, even though it is worship, from us?

So, now you may see that we don't concentrate on any physical object but onto the concept of an infinite being. We try to concentrate on the words we speak to make them meaningfull in our lives. These words are no magical words like "mantras" of hindus. Here is a small portion of our prayers, again from the Quran:

1:1	In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
1:2	Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world;
1:3	Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
1:4	Master of the Day of Judgment.
1:5	Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
1:6	Show us the straight way,
1:7	The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

 

Hence, it is clear, that our prayers our for our own benefit as God doesn't need any thing. Its we on we who needs Him to guide us to the straight path of those who got His grace and not those who got His wrath and go astray.

 

And I asked you to take it as spiritual truth because, you consider spiritual truth to be the greatest. But greater than the spiritual truth is God itself. I cannot say how God is or what God is. It has to be realised by the one who is seeking it. Whatever I say will lead only to superstition.

That is your self-limitation, however, God has given us mind to use it wisely. We can still be thankfull to Him without desecrating Him.

Let me say to you one thing. When I said about knowing Muhamad, I did not say one thing which I should have said. Muhamad said when he was praying or meditating Angel Gabreil came to him and took him to heaven on the heavenly horse Harak. I think you know this.

I think, you got it wrong, the beast's name is "Burak". This is regarding the occassion when Prophet Mohammad went on "Mearage". The details of this journey are found not only in the books of hadith (sayings of Prophet Mohammad) but Quran also talks about it. Since we already believe him concerning arrival of angel Gaberial to him and the revelation of Quran , there remainsi no doubt that why we can't believe him in this account as well.

But let me tell you one thing. Gotama more than 1000 years before Muhamad warned his desciples about a state during meditation. He warned us very much of that state. If we stumble upon such state accidentally or without understanding that state fully, it will lead to hallucinations. At this state you will find both wonderful truths and superstition coexisting. So beware of that state. This is the near exact translation of his words,"There is a great danger stumbling upon this state. In many good cases there is the danger of brain being deranged, and, as a rule, you will find all those men however great they were, who stumbled upon this superconscious state without understanding it, groped in the dark, and generally had, along with their knowledge, some quaint superstition. They open themselves to hallucinations. For instance, one would say that an angel came down in the form of a human being, with wings, other says a Deva came, yet another says his/her ancestor came and told him certain things. When you hear a man say, "I am inspired," and then talk irrationally, reject it. Why? Because these three states  instinct, reason, and superconsciousness, or the unconscious, conscious, and superconscious states  belong to one and the same mind. Instinct develops into reason, and reason into the transcendental consciousness therefore, not one of the states contradicts the others." As you can see, Muhamad would have stumbled upon such a state. I dont understand why you dont reason out things. However good Muhamad may be, it does not mean that he is not prone to mistake.

To all your descritption, suffice is to say that your concept of meditation can be totally different than what Prophet Mohammad used to do in his prayers.

There is no mistake on his part. This is a matter of belief as simple as that. No human can verify it, nor any one can experience it. (Remember I say, non observable, nor measurable and therefore not repeatable).

If you ask what authority does Gotama have for us to believe him, then I would say it is for us to prove for ourselves not at the judgement day, but here now itself.

This is a circular argument. However, in the view of above discussion, you have already made Gotama as a reduntant teacher. So, many Buddhas who came after him would teach almost the same or may be better than him. So, why bother about his teachings etc.

We believe in Gotama because he has proved whatever he said. He practiced whatever he preached. He had no emotionalism. That giant brain never was superstitious. His non-violence and compassion is shown by many as cowardliness. But I say that non-violence itself needs a lot of courage.  "Let me die, but my fellow should not suffer." that was his ideal. As a true ruler, he lived for the people.

First of all, according to you he was no special, hence a redundant teacher except that he brought this message to the masses. Regarding non-violence, can you elaborate on the concept of Yamantaka practice (a wrathfull Practice)? When, where and in which conditions this is legal among Buddhaism? BTW, why do you call him ruler? Did he rule over any part of the world?

You said, "It is for this reason that the authors of these scriptural writtings become so much important since their history and hence their relation with the actual messanger forms a part of physical truth (observable that is to say 'verifiable')." Can you tell me who wrote Koran?

 

Ofcourse! The author of the Koran is God. It was brought to Prophet Mohammad through angel Gaberial. It was revealed over the period of around 23 years. As soon as its verse used to reveal, these were not only written down by specially appointed scribes but memorised orally as well. These verses then used to rehersed throughout among the muslims during their 5 times a day obligatory prayers. All well documented and well preserved. 

I have nothing to comment about Bible. I dont know much about it but a little about Jesus. Regarding Tripitaka, there is no need for any scepticism. It was translated to many Asian languages like Chinese, Japanese, Korean and many other including mine at that time itself. They are preserved safely.

You haven't provided the names of its authors yet, despite my regular and persistant questions. This is strange as how the preservation of translations are talked about and not the original (if there is any thing known as original Tripitika).

And Gotama was indeed Hindu.

So why do you not consider the vedas of hinduism as your relegious books?

I said there are various methods of meditations. But I also said all require concentrating on an object, sound, or anything else.

This is only to your understanding, however, many other forms of meditation may have different techniques.

Why do you think so? You yourself say that spiritual truths cannot be known through physical means and then you talk about physical means like information technology etc.

Yes, this is the reason that I was trying to convey that it couldn't be done through physical means. Hence, the Prophethood of Mohammad is reliable and worthy of putting our faith onto him.

Gotama says that whether he is an illiterate or not, that does not effect his spirituality. He says even if a person is handicapped, then also that does not effect. He even said that a non-believer in God can also reach God. [/qoute] I don't see any thing to comment upon especially with regard to my above stated clarification. First point, what do you mean by "authenticated"? Authenticity of any book implies the genuinity of the book. That is to say, its authors are known, and have a strong relationship between its compilers and its authors. If the book talks about a third person, then the relationship between the author and the person mentioned in it has also to be validated. And if the author as oral traditon, then how this oral traditon transmitted through the generation till the time it was first written down, must not only be known but known through reliable chain of trasmitters. In case of multiple chains of transmission, there shouldn't be any contradiction between the two accounts about the same incident. Second point, who am I to authenticate a book? Can you authenticate Koran? I know your authentication. You say that God himself protects Koran. Now, I think you have a better perspective of what authentication is and why it is needed. Simply because without this, no one is willing to believe in this book as this process of authentication is a matter of physical truth. [Quote[    Mr. AhmadJoyia, I never bother if Gotama was among "your" sent messanges of God. Arabia is a very small place comparing to the Universe. And man is not the only living being. And even Arabians make out very small portion of the world population.:|

I don't disagree with you.

You said,"I don't put my opinion about a particular relegion based on people's habits or actions in that relegion. I do note your concern on this as well. So, let us not discuss people, but the scritural doctrines with references. If you have a evidence for the preservation of your scriptures, I shall be happy to look into it." This is really interesting. One need not follow what is written in the scriptural doctrines, but it is enough that it remains as it is. This is strange. I have no need to give you any evidence of the preservation as I am not saying that Buddhism is the "true religion" or "religion of God" or "sent by God". And even if I ask you for reason, you give reply only one thing, that its God's will.

I think you misunderstood my explanation of looking at the relegion purely from its doctrine rather than the actions of its people. People may err but the written scripture shall reveal what actually it preaches. That was the whole purpose of my statement. Regarding preservation of scriptures, I have already provided detailed explanation of it as what is authentication etc.

You asked me to read Koran. I am here to understand it. Thats the purpose I came here. But whenever I ask anything I get the same reply, it said by God so no questions or reasons.:(

Oh, really?? When did you read Quran? and where are your questions regarding it to understand? Are there any verses that you read it and I simply said that this is matter of faith alone? No, not uptill now. All you have done uptill now is to rely on your "muslim" freind's responses and understanding them through your own perception of Islam. Kindly, I say it again, read it yourself.

You said, " Infact all the messangers of God brought the same message to recognize one God and only one God." I want to know, how can you "authenticate" that they are the messengers of God?

Don't go by my words. Read it yourself and then ask me about specific verses to explain it to you. I have already provided you my own reasons in believing in the Prophethood of Mohammad. You like it or not its your own understanding, however, I have not heard any counter arguments on it to discuss furhter on them.

I see, for you everything depends on Koran and nothing outside it.

This is not an accurate statement. Things outside quran are known through the hadith (sayings) of Prophet Mohammad through physical truth. Things outside hadith are known through the mutual consensus based upon the above two sources of guidance.

No reason nothing. No questioning it for it is the word of God. How do you authenticate that Koran is the word of God? Why to try to limit the Glory of God to one small book?

Most of your questions have been answered above. Also, since you haven't  read the Quran yourself, so you comments on "small book" are meaningless.

You asked what naming is. Naming means giving names just like you do, "Will of God" etc.

Your example is not found in my responses. From where did you pick it up if not out of context?

After reading much about Islaam and Koran, I found one thing.

I wish you could have read from Quran rather than about it. That would have given some crediablity to your understanding.

[Quran]

 Koran has references to Judaism and Christianity but not any other religions. [/quote]

That is, again, an incorrect statement. There are idolators (who worshipped stones or other dieties) that are mentioned in Quran.

There are many other religions existing at that time. If Koran was said by God, he would have said about other religions and other people also irrespective of to whom he is saying whether he was an illiterate or he belongs to Arabia.

Well, my brother, Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad over a period of 23 long years. Its not a book of history. Its subject matter deals with transforming not only the faith of the people but their lives as well on day to day basis. Its subject people were all Arabic spoken, so its language is Arabic and thus its examples to convince its immediate audeince were those who used to live at that specific time and place. It is naive to expect this book to provide examples of such nations which its audiences didn't know about. This doesn't mean that God is limited in some capacity etc.

You may say that God has said that there are some 140...something messengers but only mentioned about Judaism and Christianity. This is strange. As Koran or Allaah says that Muhamad is the last messenger, can you tell me the exact number of messengers before him?

The information about number of messangers came for the guidance is not in Quran but in hadith. Anyhow, they are about 124 thousand of them.

I wonder what you mean by spiritual truth? If it is the truth, it has to be repeatable as it exists forever.

Since its not observable, hence not measurable and therefore not repeatable in the sense of physical scientific explorations. For this, one needs spiritual scientist (the messanger of God).

I want to know what you mean by spiritual truth. I cannot go further without knowing what you mean by spiritual truth.

 

Anything which is not from physical truth, comes under the definition of spiritual truth. Isn't it? I think so. What do you think?

You said,"So, you mean all the disciples of Gotama produced their own account which finally was collected and compiled in the form of a book?" Uhm...Did I say that disciples "produced" their own account? You cannot assume Tripitaka just like you assume Koran to be true or whatever. Tripitaka has explanations for everything. First tell me who wrote Koran and how can anyone believe that it is "authentic". Please dont say that it is protected by Allaah.

Now that I have already provided you the answer (see above in my present post), can you now, I repeat can you now, provide us about the formation of Tripitika and all its authors?

You said, "So you mean every Buddhist nation has its own collection of sayings of Gotama Buddha, depending upon the national origin of its Buddhist author and his encounter with Gotama Buddha in a specific time and place. Am I correct? That is also to say that there was no specific scribe appointed to pen down the sayings of Gotama. Am I correct?" So you dont even know the meanings of simple words like "translated". I thought I was the one who was poor at english. Another member gave me a english translation of Koran. So he must have given his own account and it should not be the original Koran. Thanks for making me enlightened.

Your critique didn't answer my question. Nothing of it at all. I am really disappointed. Is this the way you claim logical wisdom in your relegion? Now coming to your analogy to Quran and translation, I am sorry to say that again you are highly wrong. It seems you are making me your 'Buddha', but the fact remains no translation of Quran can ever be considered as Quran itself. So, in this sense, yes, your friend just gave you the translation of Quran depending upon the understanding of its translator. Do you disagree with this? Kindly let me know your opinion.

Regarding celibacy, Buddhist monks practice celibacy. There is a reason for it as there is reason for everything.

What is this kind of response? A few lines of reasoning is more appreciated to know your views than avoiding it. Kindly let me know why do you think celibacy is required conditions for Buddhists?

 

I say Koran is only one of the paths to reach God and as you said Koran is not the shortest path. But one of the paths. There are no shortcuts to God.

Well, every path has its path length and hence not all can be equal and therefore one needs to find the straight path and not the crooked path.

I said I read Gita, but I did not say whether I believe in it or not.:) Buddhism has concepts of Hinduism but yet very different. I cannot tell you the differences because I myself dont know much about Hinduism.

Oh really? Even after reading their holy book (Gita) you still say you can't compare the two? This is strange logic, but anyhow, this is your personal view, I can't stress on it.

Can you please tell me what is heaven and what is hell?

Heaven is a place where there is no evil and hence eternal blissful life without any worry. Hell is opposite of heaven with lot of torment, agony and pain. More details are provided in the Quran, I don't have off hand reference to them at this time.

You said, "I think I already mentioned it that we present our self in front of Allah in our thoughts." Sorry Mr. AhmadJoyia, you havent said that you present in your thoughts. But what is the difference between thought in the mind and an object in the physical world?

Our thoughts are our prayers and also our actions are our prayer. Our whole life is our prayer if we like to perform it. Thought in mind is about what no object in physical world can symbolize. It is about the infiniteness of our God to which no physical object can represent. Hence it is a big falacy to visualize God in the form of some physical object. 

So you yourself agree that you dont concentrate on God. You concentrate on your sayings or on the wordings of your leader. What is it different from idol worship. Idolators concentrate on an image and you concentrate on a word. And as of I know, image and word are no different. They are not definitely God according to you or according to Koran as God has no shape or form. So you are also praying to a word and not to God.

You got me wrong. Concentration on words implies realization that we mean what we pray and not take them as some kind of magical words like hindu "mantras". We must make effort to be rightous before even we ask for help from God. It is in this sense that we concentrate on our own sayings in our prayers. There is no resemblance between idol worship and our worship to an infinite God. Twisting words here and there won't help either.

You also said that,"If we are not able to achieve this thought then, however, we surely know that atleast He is all seerer and all hearer." So why is it so much opposition to idolatry? God is the all seerer and all hearer.

Have you defined what is idolatory before you ask questions about its differences? From the literal definition of Idolatory, our faith and hence our prayer is totally different. No physical object, dead or alive, can become worhty of human worship.

You said,"In our prayers we praise Him and beg Him to keep us on the right track, the track of those who were blessed by Him and not of those who got His anger." Even idolators say the same thing.

The difference might not be in the wording but the actual deity to which the idolators worship is in question with regard to Islam. How about Buddhaism? Do you have deities (autars) in Buddhaism? 

If you say that you are praying to what the word implies, then the idolators are also saying that they are praying to what the idol implies. So you are no different. Right?

I think I have provided a clear response to your question. It is not a matter of words we utter, but to whom we utter. Secondly, these words don't mean anything without our actions into them. Our intentions are the indicators of our prayers and our actions. There are no magical words in Quran. How about in Buddhaism? I have recently read some Buddhist practice magic through mantras. Can you throw some light on it as who and in what conditions they do it?

You siad, "For things you don't like, then how do you wish it to liked by others, for the same very reasons? Also, I didn't ask comparetive relegious questions other than the basics which might be common to all relegions." Did I force anything on you? I just said I dont like comparing religions. I said I was seeking to know Islaam. If you dont want to tell me about Islaam, its your wish, your choice.:)

As I have already said that its a matter of mutual benefit and not comparison.

You said, "I hope you don't intend to convert me to Buddahism." Mark my words, I said "seeking to know Buddhism" and I did not seeking Buddhism. I knew you would ask me the same question. And I am no one to convert you to Buddhism. I would be happy if no one would convert to Buddhism.

That is a selfish approach. Conversion implies convined and I don't think Gotama ever thought like this. Are you negating your own teacher?

................You asked me whether rebirth is only to talk about in Buddhism. There are many things to know in Buddhism. But most of them are based on rebirth. No one talks about rebirth. It is known to all. But it is also not without reason. You will find a lot of explanations in Tripitaka. Everything can be proved which is written in Tripitaka. But can you prove heaven and hell, judgement day etc.? You say that spiritual truths cannot be proved. Thats not an explanation. Its escapism.

How can you ask physical proof for spiritual truths? You didn't provide anything about rebirth etc? So why do you make such assertions about me? Yes, there are spiritual proofs for spiritual truths, but for that one has to believe in the spiritual scientist (messanger of God). I can provide you logical concept of Hell and Heaven which is very natural to our human understanding, but would that constitute a "proof"?, I don't think so. Kindly let me know if you need this kind of a proof. 

You said,"By the way in which part or chapter of Tripitika, shall I find this concept of rebirth?" You will find it in almost every chapter either directly or indirectly.

Any direct reference shall be appreciated as it would be too difficult for a lay man like me to search it out from such a huge book of unfamiliar writings.

Why do you think so small.  Isnt Tibetan Buddism Buddhism? He said that Tibetan Buddhism will change because he is Tibetan. I am a Sri Lankan, I say even Lankan Buddhism will change.

Ofcourse there are many schools of Buddhaism. I don't think this kind of response would be a unanimous decision among all schools. BTW which school of Buddhaism do you belong? (I have started learning about it, as you can feel it).

You said,"I don't think so. Rather it has forced me to question the authority of Dalai Lama and his firmness on his faith. What do you think of him? According to my understanding, the response should have been other way round. Scientists deal with physical truth and there is no search by them to reveal the spiritual truth. Hence there is no contradiction in the two at any stage. Science is limited by its applicabiltiy to only observable, measureable and hence repeatable phenomena. Therefore thinking that they would ever encounter spiritual truth in their labs is itself a negation of definition of science." First of all, I want to know about what you mean by spiritual truth. We believe that spirit is just a finer matter than physical matter. Just like Einstien's e=mc^2. Everything what you see is energy including spirit. So at some point of time both physical and spiritual have to meet. Both Physics and Metaphysics end at same point.

 

Instead of answering my question, you have resorted asking questions yourself. So let my question don't get lost, I repeat it again and then I shall reply your question. So what is the status of Delai Lama in Buddhaism and why he got such a status right from his birth?

Now coming to your question, I think I have already answered it in very simple terms that is anything which is not in physical truth (observable, measureable, and hence repeatable), is known as spiritual Truth.

Now coming to your comments on equating spirtiual truth with einstien's theory of energy conversion to mass and back. Suffice to say that energy is observable (through our five senses) and hence measureable, may not be directly but still accurately and hence repeatable. However, the spirit is not observable, nor meaurable and therefore not repeatable. Hence your definition fully falls apart. Kindly go back and revise it to understand it more spiritually. Metaphysics or whatever you name it, wouldn't help you in this case.

If you read metaphysical sciences, it has references to physics and biology. metaphysics deals with spirit, soul etc. Sagan did not mean that if "he" proves, he means that if the concept is disproved. By the way who are you to question the authority of a Lama? He was just being confident about his belief. Carl Sagan did not say that he will prove it in a laboratory. But we have ample proof of rebirth.

 

You haven't provided any physical proof of anything what say about rebirth. I am anxiously waiting for this.

You have quoted something like,"Muslims believe that the wording of the Qur'anic text that we have today is identical to that revealed to Muhammad himself; words of God delivered to Muhammad through Jibreel (Gabriel)." Thats enough. That word "believe" is enough. Your belief cannot be true.

That is misunderstanding of yours. This quote is not mine but from the reference that I quoted from. Kindly reconcile.

Can you show me the writings during Muhamad times which have vowel symbols in them or any such proof and prove them to me?

 

What is your question? In what context are you talking about? You haven't quoted my post to clearify about your question. Kindly adopt any suitable way to link up your response to my questions, though I see a big improvement from your earlier posts. Thanks.

You said,"So is it really a tit for tat kind of a game we are playing against each other?" No, Mr. AhmadJoyia. Its not at all tit of tat game. Its just comparitive religion. But you havent given me the names of the writers of Koran.

What? Haven't I not told you? Haven't you read from your own reference that you quoted to me. The author of Quran is God and God alone. For us, the humans, Prophet Mohammad is the messanger of God who brought Quran to us. Kindly let me know if you need more details on it and I shall look up to it.

You said,"First of all, I do see you doing comparison of relegions  despite your own negation of doing it." I even knew that this question will be asked by you. Just read my post again. I myself said, you brought me into it. You may say that I am so fickle to bring myself into it. Its not so. You are asking me the same questions and asked me to answer them even though I did not bother. So its not at all good if I do not answer you. You were so good to me to answer every question I pose. So its atleast my minimum requirement to answer your questions. Thats all.:)

Thankyou very much, however, you still didn't answer the question of authors of Tripitika. Hope soon you would let me know.

You said,"you seem to extract a lot of doctrines from hinduism such as the law of karma or kama, whatever you call it. What is the source of this law in Buddhaism, if not from Vedas of hinduism?" The source is Gotama itself whose doctrines were reiterated by many even after Gotama. You see, karma and kamma are words from languages. They have nothing to do with a religion. What matters is the word it implies. We have nothing to do with vedas or any other books. Shall I say that you extracted the "heaven" and "hell" and "Judgement Day" from Bible?

Good response. I appreciate it. However, my question is if Gotama didn't get it from Vedas, then these concepts must be understood indpendant of Vedas. Therefore they must be repeated in full and not mere allusions in Tripitika. Kindly let me know the specific reference where this law is exhaustively mentioned. On the otherhand, if its not, then it must have been assumed by Gotama that this must be a known concept therefore no need to go into the details. Let us see where this concept is explained by Gotama in Tripitika?

Simple english Mr. AhmadJoyia, simple english. There is a lot of difference between "name" and "attribute". They wrote that they were "beautiful names" not "beautiful attributes".

I would like to know the difference between the two as per your suggestion so that I can present my point of view.

You said,"Why do you find it strange that God judges? In an essence, according to your own description, the law of judgement has been set by God Himself, hence it is He who is enacting the Law. Isn't it? Ofcourse, when we talk about any truth, like the physical truth, we imply the physical law and similarly the spiritual truth, implies spiritual law." This is the Beauty.... of all the questions..... Doesnt Koran say that God is Omnipresent? If he is Omnipresent, He is everywhere. That means He is even in a stone. As you said about "attribute" and "name", you can say that stone is itself Him.

This is the fallacy of making irrationale conclusions through irrationale logic. It is same as if I say that God is most powerful and everything is created by him, then someone may ask, can he make such a heavy load of weight that he can't lift himself? It is for this reason, that we go for non-literal analogies to understand God in his infinite capacity.

And you can concentrate on a word, but another cannot concentrate on an image. If you say stones have no power, then even words have no power.

I think I have very well explained the differences between the two worships. Here is the question is not what we say, its rather to whom we pray. Secondly, words implies our intentions with all our mental faculties present so that we should also make endeavors to act and then expect it to be helped by God and not the vice versa. Our pray is not, I shall repeat, is not the object of our prayer, at all. Let there be no confusion.

You say that idolators give shape to  God, but what are you doing? You say that God is formless. What do you mean by formless? When you say that God is formless, you are denying that there exists something which has form. But nothing exists but God as God is everywhere. Isnt it?

I must be highly wrong if I ever said that, though you got to show me where did I say such a thing. I simply say that since God is infinite in His capacity, it is naive to expect any figurative resemblence attached to Him. The above quoted verse from Quran, exactly provides guidance to this direction where it says "

112:4

And there is none like unto Him"

You yourself said,"If we are not able to achieve this thought then, however, we surely know that atleast He is all seerer and all hearer." He even sees what the idolators do. He definitely has no distinction between a shape and a word for He loves all.

Again, the intentions are the key point here. Idolators ask help from their dieties to whom they imitate in the form of stones etc, hence they shall get what they intend for.

You said,"Again, one has to understand the infinitness only through non-literal understanding of the Quran." What do you mean by this? What is a non-literal understanding?

Literal understanding is the same as you have tried to use it to explain the concept of God being omnipresent and then changed it to God being same as stone itself. I somehow anticipated your way of reasoning. In non literal sense, it is suffice to know that all our actions are accountable whether some one sees us or not, we can't escape from our deeds.

First you said, Koran is the word of God, then you said, Koran is not Truth but explanation of the Truth and then you say understanding only through non-literal understanding of the Koran. You are just confusing Mr. AhmadJoyia.

Though, these quotes of mine are from different occasions amalgamated totally out of their own context, nevertheless, I hope you are now clear on them.

varshaken wrote: Hi Mr.AhmadJoyia!!!!! Thank you for replying me. But I may not reply you again. I havent even read your entire reply. I feel I am just wasting your time and my time. Anyway, thank you for everything. Varshaken, the Samurai.

Well my brother, its your own wish. No compulsion. However, I never thought the question of authorship of Tripitika would be so heavy on someone that instead of finding a rational answer to it, may choose not to talk about it anymore. Similarly when more intriguing questions on the so called "peacefull Buddhaism" Viz a Viz "wrathful Buddhaism" are asked, I wasn't expecting this from you. Anyhow, whereever you go, my prayer that may God direct you to the right path through your own wisdom and logic, shall ever remain with you. Amen!

My Dear Bro varshaken

Its good to hear you back as more I am getting to know about Buddhaism, more I need someone's help to make me understand of it, especially once I come across strange phenomena in the writtings. For example the concept of Yamantaka Buddhaism. So you say its a peacefull meditation to thwart away the evil from ones mind. But the passage I am quoting is direct from your own websites which describe something different. Is it peaceful meditation against an evil person, like a magic done to harm a so called "evil" person or what? Here is the complete passage from this web site. For many other difficult concepts (I have highlighted and underlined them) in this passage to understand, more few questions are asked after the passage as well.

" Nub (Nubchen Sang-gye Yeshe) Lineage:  Nub�s father was Selwei Wangchug, and his mother was Chim-mo Trashi-Tsho.  When he was 7 yearsold, he learned to read and write Tibetan language from Odran Palgyi Wangchug.  Later he received 3 stages of monastic vows from Bodhisattva Shantaraksh*ta.  He also received the Eight Heruka Empowerment from Padmasambhava and actualised the signs of accomplishment.  He then followed Master Vasudhara and received from him many root tantras and oral instructions, and he also received many empowerments and practice instructions of the mandala of the assembly of the secret mind of deities from Khenpo Chetsunkye of Drushi.  When Nub was in Samye Monastery to translate the tantra with many of the other translators, he subdued many enemies of Buddhism with wrathful practice.  In order to protect the Dharma, he introduced many wrathful Yamantaka practice from India, and also received from Padmasambhava many oral instructions in a five-spoke vajra cave located at the border between Tibet and Nepal.  From Master Sogpo Palgyi Yeshe, he learned the Mind Class Tantra of the Great Perfection and Guhyagarbha Tantra.  He practiced and accomplished at the charnel grounds and places where tigers appeared, and personally saw many meditation deities.  Due to his powerful attainment, he subdued many spirits and worldly gods.  He could not endure the suppression of the Dharma by Langdarma, he resolved to bring him to an end by means of wrathful practice.  But when Langdarma was destroyed by Lhalung Paldorgyi, Nub concealed the wrathful practice as terma (hidden treasure), lest they be misused.  Throughout his life, he propagated the lineage of the trilogy of mDo, Gyu, Sem.  Finally he entered nirvana with a rainbow body, spontaneously accomplished by the path of the natural Great Perfection."  http://www.tbss.org/tibetbuddhism.htm - http://www.tbss.org/tibetbuddhism.htm

"

First of all the concept of Yamantaka practice that is mentioned in these passage is not at all what you have described. So I really don't know which Buddhaism are you talking about.

Then there are indications of sporadic teachings of various empowerments practically varying from one and another depending upon whom you learn from. Hence there is no standard to which one looks upto it. In other way its sort of calling people to go into monastic life if they really want success (i.e. nirvana). This is what I called in one of my passages that Islam doesn't require people to seek the Truth in the forests. This is indeed a remarkable difference.

Then, I read here empowerment over assembly of secret minds of dieties. Who are these dieties? Is it polytheism that Buddhaism is all about? I am not sure and needs your opinon on it.

Then finally, what is this Guhyagarbha Tantra?  Is it not a kind of magic to which you alluded that it takes a person to disbelief? Then how is it attained and practiced by someone who finally attained nirvana? That too kind of superstitious body of 'rainbow'?

This is totally different than what you have been telling us about Buddhaism. Where is the concept of one God in any of these writings? I would definitely like to see that portion of writings as well. 

In the end, just not let the response go long to make you feel uncomfortable, I just picked one of your line to analyse its implication.

Here is what you say "Thats why Gotama is considered great among the Buddhas who instead of seeking God helped others to know the Truth, i.e., God"  What is this kind of statement? If Gotama didn't know about God how can help anyone else to know about God? Probably, he knew about God without doubt, hence he didn't require to seek God but to let others know about Him. Isn't it? But then, his teachings must be unique and therefore must be preserved as all other Buddhas went to know about God as they didn't know of Him. Its only in this regard that Gotama's teachings must have been preserved through reliable means and not left on the mercy of later day Buddhas to forge their own doctrines (various tantras and empowerment techniques etc) superceeding that of Gotama. It is in this appalling situation that God sent His last messanger along with His final guidance to mankind (Quran) for all times to come and for all generations. I have invited you before and invite you again to read Quran yourself. Don't learn about Islam but from the original source (i.e Quran), so that afterwards on the day of Judgement no one is left with any excuse of not knowing about it. Rest Allah knows the best. Amen. 

Hi Mr.AhmadJoyia!!!!!!!!

 I have told you that Buddhism is a religion based on reasoning. Anything irrational is not Buddhism. So you can rest assured that whenever you read or hear about anything irrational, thats not Buddhism. Unlike Christianity and Muhamadanism, Buddhism was welcomed everywhere because of its Universal Premise of Peace and God is Peace devoid of good or evil. Many times Buddhism got mixed with the local religions. This is because of Buddhism's perfectness that no one was able to deny it. Instead they accepted it without any opposition. Gotama had no superstition, no doubt, no fear. He was indeed a perfect man. You said that Gotama couldnt say anything about God. But Gotama said much more silently. There is a Chinese proverb,"The heart does not speak, but we should listen to it."

There is a lot of difference between knowing God and seeking God.

The following is what we believe.

What you talk of is a materialistic God. The God who gets anger, who loves, who judges, who punishes, who shows mercy etc. is a materialistic God which has no existence except as a figment of imagination. God created us just because he wanted us this way is a materialistic view. God, though being all powerful and fully aware of the future still waits until a day called "judgement day" is a superstition. When you said, "can he make such a heavy load of weight that he can't lift himself?" you were refering to a materialistic God. Our concept of God is a principle, Nirvana. God, Laws(physical, psychical, spiritual etc.) exist. They have no begining or no end. They exist by virtue of themselves. This is a world of Law and Order. If I do a mistake, I will be repaid here in this world itself. Whatever happens in our life, is because of us and not because God wants so. If I meet with an accident, it is because of my wrong doing and if I get a prize in a lottery it is because of my good deeds. Even if anyone betrays me, its not him who is betraying me, but its just an effect of my past evil deed. Good and evil are relative. Purpose of Life is to attain God. Truth or explanation of the Truth need not be written down and preserved. God does not want anything from us. Not even prayer. If you say that He wants prayer or worship from us, then you are just limiting Him thinking through this limited brain. God is Omnipresent. Transcend the body, transcend even the mind, you will see the reality i.e. God. There is nothing as hell. When you say heaven and hell, you are likening to good and evil. And God has neither qualities of good nor evil. We will reach Heaven, i.e, Nirvana whether we will it or not. Remember, no one, I mean, no one will be in anything called hell.

You said that Muhamadans need not go to a forest. But Muhamad did go to a mountain for meditation and prayer may be because of the unavailability of forests. You also said that Muhamad's meditation may be totally different from what we do. I want to know his kind of meditation, a meditation which is without concentration as you said.

Whatever I say may be an alien language to you. You say that "spiritual truths" can only be known by a few. If they are truths then they should be known by everyone. You say that "spiritual truths" are not observable. Yes, they cannot be observed by the body. But mind has a higher existence. Mind can percieve the "spiritual truths". When Jesus told about the Book of Life, he was refering to the mind and not any written book.  That was how Muhamad was able to percieve the Truths. Remember, knowledge is discovered, not invented. If you are open minded, you will understand everything clearly.

Varshaken, the Samurai.

varshaken wrote:  This is a world of Law and Order. If I do a mistake, I will be repaid here in this world itself. Whatever happens in our life, is because of us and not because God wants so. If I meet with an accident, it is because of my wrong doing and if I get a prize in a lottery it is because of my good deeds. Even if anyone betrays me, its not him who is betraying me, but its just an effect of my past evil deed. Good and evil are relative.

So how do you explain bad things happening to good people? It is not fair to just say that they obviously did something bad in a past life, or something like that, because it is not possible for us to be aware of such things, so we cannot know what lesson is to be learned.

Also - "bad things happen because you were/are bad" is a VERY good excuse for people to enforce a caste system of sorts. this is inhumane. Look at Western society, for example - bad luck does not count for anything nowdays. If you are going through hard times, you are a "loser", not "unlucky and trying very hard to do better".

In Japan, companies have a list of family names that they make sure they never hire. Why? Becuase hundreds of years ago, people with these names were in the lower classes of society. Japanese society quitely tries to make sure these people "stay where they belong".

Why??

In a place like Japan, killing is seen as wrong because people are Buddhists. HOWEVER, they are quite happy to eat meat that OTHER PEOPLE have killed, so society quitely assumes that's ok. Of course, due to the fact that some people have to kill the animals, they are in a lower class of society and that's where they stay.

It's a wonder Japan kills whales so openly - wouldn't you think that so much killing would cause them to Lose Face?

Kim...

who wants to open a Japanese restaurant called "Research Purposes", just to get up people's noses...

How wonderfully, my dear brother Varshaken, have you dismissed your own website and then you blame others of descrating Buddhaism. I thought one would be brave and bold enough to uphold the common beliefs perpetuated by so called open minded "peaceful" Buddhists. Would you like some more of such flavours from your other brothern websites, or would you like to challange them about their fairy tales before you come here to tell us un-subtantiated rationalistic form of Buddhaism. Even upon this rationale, you have yet not provided a single evidence to subtantiate your philosophy of rebirth etc. On the more, you have again avoided the reasonable questions of authenticity of Tripitika, according to which you come across the teachings of Gotama. Untill you do that, I don't think, one has any ground on the basis of which he can deny his own websites. I am sure if I contact these websites, they would put you out of the circles of real Buddhaism. So, what are we talking about? Mere philosophical discussions without any evidence? This is totally un-comprehensible from a person like you.

On the issue of canonization of Tripitika, again your meaningful silenece is nothing more but to avoid its discussion. Where is your so called rationality in your approach? Is it not a blind faith? A faith without any standard and just depends upon to whom you talk to. Today I am talking to you and you present a rosy picture of it tomorrow I come across another person and he would totally negate you even in your own basic premises and shall tell another story about it. Is this the Buddhaism we shall be looking at? I don't think so. Kindly let me know any Buddhaism website, that you think is well suited to your ideas. Let us read ourself and then let us ask you questions on it to truely understand it. Not just chickening away from the logical discussions, but facing them boldly is what the sincereity in knowing the truth is.    

Hello AhmadJoyia and Varshaken sorry for interrupting. If you would like to know more about Buddhism I will be more than happy tp share with you all what I know. Sorry if it contradicts what you believe Varshaken but it's what I have been taught. Secondly should we move this disscussion to a new topic perhaps (Islam and Buddhism) as you suggested AhmadJoyia we are off the topic at the moment.

If I can't reply to you soon perhaps two weeks assume my computer is up for repairs had problems with it lately. 

Seeyas soon.

My Dear Brother Varshaken,

This is surprising to me when you say that I have never explained whatever you asked. Infact my endeavor to answer and reply each question of yours led me to write line by line response to your questions and yet I see you complaining about. Are we reading the same thread in the same language? I am somewhat puzzled over this. Kindly go back to my responses to your question and let me know which question of yours remain un-answered. However, I don't bear the responsability of putting wrong questions by you. Anyhow, due to your complaint about this, I am again restoring my format of line by line response.

varshaken wrote: Hi Mr.AhmadJoyia!!!!!! First thing, you never explain me whatever I ask or question. Then you linger at something irrelevent even to a Buddhist.

Just on the face of your own question, I don't understand your way of reasoning. You say "irrelevent even to Buddhist". Ofcourse, there would be thousands of such questions that may seem irrelevent to Buddhist but from logical standpoint, they remain important for non-Buddhist. Avoiding them by simply ignoring them is what my biggest compliant with you. Even in your current reply, you didn't even bother to talk about the canonization process through which Tripitika is now known, and which I specifically mentioned in my shortest possible response. Once you say that you follow the teachings of your teacher (Gotama Buddha), shouldn't we look at those teachings. If not, then you should tell us from which channels you got your teachings from Gotama Buddha?

I dont understand why I should prove you what I believe. I did not say that Buddhism is God's religion or anything like that. And I didnt even force you to believe what I believe. I have told you I know the exact names of who have written the Tripitaka.

Ok, this time I must be thankfull to you that at last after spending so many days, finally you provided the partial list (I am assuming "..." in the end of your list means "and many more") who wrote Tripitika. In this line of reasoning, how many more authors should I expect to be in this list, (just a rough guess would be ok with me), i.e. ten more, or 50 more or 100 more or what? Finally, is this book a complete record of teachings of your teacher or there are many others that have not been recorded in this book and are available elsewhere as well?

And not all Buddhists read it. Its just like a guide and it should not be followed blindly as "written by God" "sent by an angel" "told by a prophet". One has to discover them by themselves.

So, you mean they (Buddists) do read it for guidance and follow it not blindly but "un-blindly". So what are those guidelines in this book that you say one has to discover them by themselves? Can you provide a summary of them, so that we can see if they differ from your stand point and the one mentioned on the Buddist websites.

The list of writers is very long, and I will be giving only a few names. But I need the names of the one who wrote Koran. This is the list of the writers of Pali Tipitaka, Ananda, Anujasena, Aranyagupta, Anayul, Upari, Kashyapa, Rahur, Somberu, Saribul, Majnyon, Vrishcha, Purona, Kajonyon, Subori, Suroya...

Ok, now coming to your provided list of authors or Tripitika, can you let me know that except Ananda, who all others are? I mean were these the direct disciples of Gotama Buddha? I tried hard on the internet to verify your list but couldn't find the names in your list to match up with theirs except for the Ananda. There are many websites which does talk about disciples of Gotama, but none of them contain the names of authors of tripitika that you have provided. Here are few of them

http://stone.buddhism.org/eng/seokguram/disciple.html - http://stone.buddhism.org/eng/seokguram/disciple.html

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sidneys/disciples.htm - http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sidneys/disciples.htm  

http://www.nibbana.com/disciple.htm - http://www.nibbana.com/disciple.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/bud-disciples.pdf - http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/bud-disciples.pdf

Kindly send me the reference of your source of information regarding the authors of Tripitika.

Not letting your question go unanswered, though repeating myself again and again, the actual author of Quran is God. Through His messanger Prophet Mohammad this book has reached to humans. Since Prophet Mohammad didn't know how to read to write, the verses were not only memorized by the followers of Mohammad but were also pen down by the scribes appointed by him. These verses were then used to be recited during the daily prayers (5 times a day). After the revelation of Quran was complete, Prophet Mohammad specified the order in which these verses must be in a particular chapter (Surahs). After this was done, Prophet Mohammad took special care to recite the whole Quran in the month of Ramadan (month of fasting) during the nightly prayer of Taraweah (a special prayer arranged in the month of Ramadan). It is in this context that whole Quran is preserved right from its day of inception. For more info kindly refer to http://www.sunnah.org/history/quran_compiled.htm - http://www.sunnah.org/history/quran_compiled.htm

or many other similar websites.

Remember my first post? I told you, we cannot find real Buddhism over the internet. I even told you that Buddhism was combined into the local beliefs of the people.

Yes, I remember that you mentioned not much literature has been put onto internet. However, I do expect some atleast must be there on the internet. Then in our course of discussion you alluded about Dalai Lama of Tibet as one of your true Buddha of present time. Therefore, isn't it reasonable to look at some of the websites by Tibetean Buddhas? Then how do you negate these websites? In any case, you need to provide the evidence of pure form of Buddhaism that, according to you, is still preserved with you. Till that time, we are just talking in the air.

Reasoning is very difficult. Everyone cannot reason, one should have a great much courage to reason things. Buddhism is actually a religion for the courageous. One needs to be very brave to be non-violent and rational. The non-violence should be the non-violence of the lion, which lets prey walk by, because he is not hungry and knows he can get them any time he wants.

But what happens when the lion is hungry? All non-violance goes away just in a blink of an eye as the loin must now has to eat. Eat by devouring other animals. Is this the justification Buddist have for once they are in fight with other nations? I mean on the basis of principles, can Buddhist still fight with an evil? but other than that, they are just peace loving non-voilent people. 

But unfortunately or fortunately Buddhism was accepted by many. I told you that I would not like anyone to convert to Buddhism.

Isn't it a selfish approach? Do you want, only you to enjoy the benefits of (your) Truth?

Buddhism is not at all a system of control as Muhamadanism is.

I haven't heard of "Muhamadanism" before. Can you explain what do you mean by it over here? If it is with respect of Islam, then I may smell a change in your mood in our discussion since you never used this word while refering to Islam. Why is this change? Do you feel offended when I ask some difficult questions or what? If yes, then kindly do let me know to avoid them, however, some questions are basic to establish the authenticity of some of your statements which they are not substantiated by Buddist websites. Such as the names of authors of Tripitika you provided and those mentioned on these websites.

Buddhism does not say that only Buddhists are fit for Heaven.

Then, who else you think are fit for (Buddist) heaven?

For your kind information, no website is mine. If you point me to another website which says something else, I dont bother about it. I know what I follow is the right path not because someone has authenticated my belief but because I KNOW I am following the right path.:-)

Aren't you Buddist? If yes, then aren't these Buddhist websites reflect your beleifs? Same as you accepted Dalai Lama as your Buddhist leader, why would you not accept the websites which claim to have Dalai lama as their leader too? I mean, there may be difference in opion about some issues hence different schools of thought exists in Buddhaism, but denying them all togather is something else. You can make exceptions to some of their views but not all. Howver, even if you denouce all the contents of all the websites of Buddhaism, then, I think you are talking of extremely minority view of Buddist relegion. Hence don't represent to be from main stream Buddist traditons. Though, you can still call yourself a Buddhist, however, you need to authenticate your views through some other sources (articles, books or some journals) as well. 

And beliefs which we hold are very uncommon. Only a few understand what Buddhism is. But this does not mean that I am against others. We are all just learning. Our paths may be different, but the destination is the same.

This is a very sweeping statement. You need to talk in specifics rather than just using words like "other" or "our" to mean anyone in this world or only Buddists etc.

I have some questions, I really would like to know answers from you, these questions are exclusively to you, not for other Moslems or anyone else,

Oh, why are you making exceptions for me only? Did I ever say my Islam is different than other Muslims? Its you who took such a position and not me. Then why would you restrict other muslims to respond to your questions?

1st Question: Who wrote Koran? I know that Koran was sent by God, but I need the authors.

Yes, the author of Quran is God. Simple and straight forward answer. However, from your own referred website about Quran as well as my above referred website provides more elaborative reply to this answer.

2nd Question: Do you have any proof that Arabi is not a consonantal language during the time of Muhamad? If so, can you please tell it to me?

I didn't say that at the time of Muhammad (pbuh) arabi was consonantal. Infact, I said non-consonantal nature of arabic is an attribute of flexability for the native people of this written language than having any restriction. However, this flexiblity in language became a restriction when the Quran became known to non-arabic speaking people. It was in this situation that a system of consonant was introduced to preserve the true pronounciation of the Quranic text. Even now people of arabia, may still be using Quran without consonants since they are not restricted with the familiarity of the language.

3rd Question: You agree with me that "Truth requires no prop".

No, I didn't agree to it. Kindly go back to my response to your assertion where I provided logical arguments to negate your point of view. But alas, that you remained emotional than providing any counter logic to defend your position.

But when we do not consider Koran to be the word of God, then why does Koran become irrational?

As your assumption to this question is wrong hence your subsequent reasoning must also be wrong. Secondly, kindly provide any specific reference from Quran, that you have yourself read and found irrational. Kindly don't say that you heard it from your "muslim" friend or your understanding of these saying. Be specific and Inshallah, I shall try my best to respond to it. 

I think you know that one truth does not depend on assumptions or even another truths. So please can you give me any proof regarding the authenticity of Koran being the word of God?

Which truth are you talking about over here? Spiritual truth or physical truth? For spiritual truth, spiritual proofs are provided and for physical truth, physical proofs are provided. One can't assume the same kind of proof for the both. Do you? I don't think so. Therefore, it is more wise to be precise in the premise of your question.

4th Question: Can you please tell me what was the method of meditation of Muhamad? You were telling that it is totally different from what I told about meditation. So can you please tell me your edition of meditation which does not require concentration as you say?

I don't know what kind of it was. However, it doesn't warrant that your way of meditation is same as the prayer/meditation of Prophet Mohammad before his prophethood. Since it was you who is bent upon equating the two, therefore onus of burdun to prove lies on you and not me. Though I simply assumed it, it is not worse than your assumption either.

5th Question: I think you dont have any concept of rebirth. If at all rebirth will be proved, then your belief would go wrong. What is your comment?

Again, I think, you are mixing the two truths with their proofs here. Our concept of getting alive on the day of judgement is related to spiritual truth and it can only be proved or disproved through spiritual evidence. Though, I don't know what is the kind of your concept of rebirth, however, if its also related to spiritual truth, then finding a physical proof is simply a falacy. Therefore, providing spiritual evidence to prove a physical truth or vice versa are tools of illogical minds.

I found that, you are just here to prove that what I believe is false. I dont bother even if what I believe is proved false.Truth shall prevail

So what does bother you then? I think its a high time for someone to say this. That is same as saying truth may prevail even though I may be false. Shouldn't someone like to know and understand about truth rather than falsehood. BTW, I have only presented what any nominal logical mind would naturally do to your thinking. If you have any counter arguments, you are most welcome and I shall not hesitate to learn from them. 

. I am here to learn, and not to submit to anothers' beliefs.:-)

Again, even if you learn about Truth from here, would you not submit? Isn't it an arrogant behaviour? This only reflects someone's closed mind to understand about anything he is intending to learn, what to talk about Truth.

I would consider myself most fortunate if you can answer me the above questions. Thanking you, Varshaken, the Samurai.

I don't know if my replies have brought any fortune to you or not, as I believe, that it only comes from God and God only. Rest God knows the best.

Oh no brother Varshaken I wasn't implying that you were interested. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. Just wanted a hearty discussion and share what I know thats all. Just to clear things me and Fuhad are not the same person.

Peace Varshaken.

O my dear Bro Varshken,

I thought I had provided a meaningful response with all my attention. How could you say the response is meaningless without even reading it? Kindly point out the response where you think it is meaningless other than where the question itself was also meaningless. Nevertheless, you again succeeded in avoiding the question of canonization of Tripitika; congratulations!! But would you think, by doing this, the truth can be hidden? I don't think so. My bro its an information age. Time has gone once these doctrinal info was only known to a group of select few. Whatever they used to say, the listeners had no options but to accept them on the face of it. Now, people ask references about any info they provide. Authenticity of their sayings is the foremost requirement that must be assertained. No fairy tales can be accomodated. Though, you haven't related any such story in this forum, however, one can't deny their presence in Buddhaism especially once they are in easy access of internet. If you don't have anything contrary to these websites which may support your point of view by putting aside their fairy tales, then, I think this can serve as the closing statement of our long discussion. Have a nice day.

Ok, Bro Varshaken, I shall begin as unusual, with replies to your questions and then, in the end may request some answers from you.

Your foremost question is concerning "spiritual truth". I think I have already provided a very detailed and elaborative reply to these questions in my earlier posts. However, repeating again, if it make sense for someone is all what is needed. By "spiritual truth", I mean (as per my personal opinion) anything that is not observable, measureable and hence not repeatable. In the same token, hence, can't be realised by everyone simply because its not observable not measureable and hence not repeatable. Since I am not a philosopher or theologian, hence can't say anything more than this. Though this veiw may not be very precise, but it would be interesting to see what alternate definitions are for this. 

Now coming to my question, can you explain how you acquire your knowledge from your teacher especially when you say that Gotam Buddha is your teacher Viz a Viz you also mentioned that he is not dead and had just left his body centuries ago?

There is no need to be a philosopher or theologian. Spiritual truths are for everyone, otherwise we cannot reach God. Its everyones birthright to realise them.

I agree.....

My Dear Brother Varshaken,

I am sadly disappointed on my rejection of request to you for certain questions that would have benefitted me (atleast). Since you chose not to reply to them despite my repeated requests, I can't go on with a one sided discussion, though my questions were clearly taking non-comparisonal approach in our discussions. However, I could see some others are interested in sharing their views with you such as amlhabibi2000, so I think you won't bother if I don't continue with this discussion. BTW, there is another thread where Brother Sanjiv has started a good discussion on Buddhaism, hope to see you there, if you like.

Salaams,

Where is the English Translation/link of this book?

http://www.geocities.com/hosseincaraballo/ - http://www.geocities.com/hosseincaraballo/

???

verify

dear verify

good question

One may call the author of the website for this question.

  mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]

Peace,