24.12.2012 Views

Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism

Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism

Common Ground - Islam and Buddhism

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!