Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism
Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism
Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Setting the Scene<br />
tion; in this respect, no other sage or ‘prophet’ is conceivable in the<br />
Buddhist tradition, <strong>and</strong> none can attain to his status, as regards what<br />
in <strong>Islam</strong> would be called his risāla, his message. In regard to the<br />
second, the enlightenment he attained was indeed made accessible<br />
in principle to all those who followed his teachings; this corresponds<br />
to what in <strong>Islam</strong> is called walāya, sanctified consciousness. The<br />
Prophet was both rasūl <strong>and</strong> walī, Messenger <strong>and</strong> saint; in respect of<br />
the first, his status is unique, <strong>and</strong> none can aspire to it; as regards the<br />
second, one who does not aspire to sanctification is heedless of the<br />
meaning of the prophet as role-model <strong>and</strong> example: There is indeed<br />
for you in the Messenger of God a beautiful exemplar … (33:21).<br />
In other words, while the specific message which defines the<br />
Prophetic function is indeed bestowed upon him, alone, his sanctity,<br />
by contrast, can be the object of the aspiration for all, in principle,<br />
who follow his Sunna; indeed, emulating the Prophet culminates<br />
for the highest saints in a real participation, to some degree at least,<br />
in the Prophet’s own sanctity, his walāya being the source of the<br />
walāya of the saints. The ‘friends of God’ (awliyā’ Allāh) are saints,<br />
then, but not prophets. They are enlightened beings, but not messengers<br />
of God.<br />
It may be objected here that this enlightenment constitutes,<br />
precisely, the revelation experienced by the Buddha, <strong>and</strong> that this<br />
surging up of enlightenment from within cannot be equated with<br />
the descent (tanzīl) of revelation from on high. In the first case, it<br />
would be argued, the knowledge acquired comes from oneself, at<br />
however deep a level of consciousness, <strong>and</strong> is thus subjective; in<br />
the second, the knowledge bestowed comes from without, <strong>and</strong> is<br />
thus objective. Moreover, in the one there is no mention of a divinity,<br />
only a deeper dimension of the self, whereas in the other, any<br />
hint that the revelation has anything to do with the person of the<br />
Prophet is heretical.<br />
One can resolve this dilemma with the help of two fundamental<br />
principles: one of which we have mentioned above, pertaining to<br />
what the Buddha called the ‘divine eye’, <strong>and</strong> the other, the fundamental<br />
notion of anattā, ‘no-self’. To address briefly the latter, this<br />
doctrine is known as one of the three ‘marks’ in Buddhist doctrine,<br />
the other two being dukkha (suffering) <strong>and</strong> anicca (impermanence).<br />
These three ‘marks’ of existence complement the four noble truths,<br />
<strong>and</strong> in particular, explain the mechanism of suffering: that which<br />
suffers is not a permanent self, but the various perishable aggre-<br />
21