5 ms·

> but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You mean modern Buddhists aren't. Early Muslims considered the Buddhists they encoun

• nabla9 4y ago
  The earliest Buddhist texts were written down centuries after the death of the Buddha. Buddhism started as an oral tradition.
  • thx2099100 4y ago
    so did islam.
    • omarfarooq 4y ago
      Correct, Quran means lit. recitation.
      • JetAlone 4y ago
        For that matter, the New Testament wasn't written until long after the life of Jesus, the canon wasn't established until long after many oral traditions were, and some of Old Testament canon the status of "deuterocanon/apocrypha" has been controversial. Religions start with key important figures, events and practices long before they get encoded as text. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that might have gone somewhat in the reverse direction was L. Ron Hubbard writing Dianetics and other books to develop a schema and theory for psychological healing before he officially started Scientology. But I don't know all the details about early Scientology so it's hard to say precisely how much was pre-encoded there. I've heard rumours that Hubbard was involved in Freemasonry before starting Scientology so if it's true, it's likely that some of his experiences in it shaped his writings. I also heard that Paul Twitchell, founder of a lesser-known group called "Eckankar" spent some of his earlier days in Scientology. But I digress. When you strip practices away from dogma in an attempt to further enrich corporations, it's almost like trying to start over with the practices borrowed from some past heritage, the corporation's leadership as the key figures who give advice or select practice consultants to confer with, and with some milestone of success as the promised "awakening event". It definitely runs the risk of turning the corporation into a personality cult where your boss directly or indirectly tells you how to reach a spiritual objective... Of making them money.
• dym_sh 4y ago
  was it b/c muslims also lived by the book and buddhists just retaliated in kind?
• coldtea 4y ago
  I don't think parent meant that Buddhist's aren't "people of the book" with the muslim meaning of the term. Given the context, he probably meant they aren't "by the book", not strict about their scripture.
  • denton-scratch 4y ago
    Buddhists are not "people of the book" because the Buddha was not a God, and didn't have prophetic access to the teachings of a God. His views on karma and rebirth, for example, were those of the society he sprang from; they were not the result of transcendent insight. He was not some kind of perfect being. Buddha became more God-like as the centuries passed; some Prajnaparamita and later texts describe him as being the height of seven palm trees, for example. But he's never been considered infallible, like a prophet.
    • nprateem 4y ago
      > they were not the result of transcendent insight That's exactly his selling point, that through deep meditation he had profound insights, regarding impermanance and no-self. But yeah, that was his own realisation, not just some words some god said to him that are supposed to be infallible.
• selimthegrim 4y ago
  Shahrastani, whose book Kitab al milal wan nihal is sitting in front of me right now, had a lot of things to report about Buddhists, and not only that verdict. Have you read him? Furthermore, Biruni on this subject alone is notoriously unreliable, relying on secondhand sources.
  • riskneutral 4y ago
    > had a lot of things to report about Buddhists Would love to know more ...
    • selimthegrim 4y ago
      Best to find the Bruce Lawrence translation - in short Muslims had varying opinions of them based on different understandings