Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Characteristics of the Buddhas (Enlightened Ones) to identify




 Characteristics of the Buddhas (Enlightened Ones) to identify The Last Buddha i.e. Buddha Maitreya

  • A Buddha is a human being
  • Buddhas are males
  • A Buddha is a gifted being
  • The Plan of Salvation
  • Buddhas are only Preachers
  • Buddhas are Ideal Preachers
  • Preacher's companions in Loneliness
  • The True Followers of Buddhas
  • Only One Buddha in the world at a time
  • Buddhas are Teacherless
  • A Bo-tree for every Buddha
  • The meeting under the Bo-Tree
  • The Victory under the Bo-tree
  • The celestial Bo-tree
  • Buddhas and Signs
  • The True Miracle
  • The Neck-Bone of Buddhas

Buddhist scriptures have defined the characteristics of Buddhas. We shall consider some of these:-
"It is only a human being"(Warren pp.14-15) that can be a Buddha, "a deity cannot." (Ibid.)
A Buddhist can consider the claims of Mohammed as the Buddha Maitreya, for he was a human being. The Koran, like the Buddhist scriptures, declares that apostles of God, peace be on them all, were human beings:-
"We have not sent (any) before thee (as Our apostles), other than men, unto whom We spake by revelation. Enquire therefore of those who have the custody of scriptures if ye know not (this to be truth)." (XVI. P. 260.)
The Koran very clearly gives out that Mohammed was a human being:-
(1) "Say, Verily I am only a man like unto you." (XLI. P. 463)
(2) "And now is an apostle come unto the (inhabitants of Mecca) from among themselves." (XVI. P. 269)
(3) "Now hath God been gracious unto the believers when He raised up among them an apostle of their own nation." (III.P. 65.)
(4) "Now hath an apostle come unto you of your own nation." (IX. P. 198.)
(5) "It is a strange thing unto the men (of Mecca), that We have revealed (Our will) unto a man from among them." (X. P. 199.)
(6) "Say, Verily I am only a man as ye are." (XVIII. P. 296.)
(7) "Answer, My Lord be praised! Am I other than a man?" (XVII.P.281.)
By same of the Hindus Shankaracharya is not considered a human being on. account of his birth which was without the agency of a male:-
(1) "The writer of Manimanjari states........that a young widow once went to the temple of Siva, along with the girls of her own age. and that, as some among them prayed for children, she also did so, that the Lord granted her request and that she bore Sankara in consequence........." (Sri Shankarcharya by C. N. Krishna Swami Aiyer and S. N. Tattvabhusan. P. 14.)
(2) ".........the wife continued for a long time to serve the Lord of Chidambaram, and that as a reward of her devotion, the Lord was pleased to make her conceive in some mysterious and miraculous manner......" (Ibid. P. 13.)
Jesus, too, is not considered a human being by majority of Christians on account of his birth which was without the agency of a male:-
"Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise: When his mother, Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away, privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee, Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 1 :18-20.)
A section of the Hindus have deified Shankaracharya:-
"........his followers like those of Jesus Christ, invented the story of his having been born without a human father, in order to establish his divinity on a miraculous basis" (Sankaracharya by S. N. Dutta. pp. 2-3.)
Majority of Christians claim divinity for Jesus. The idea is based on some such passages of the scripture:-
(1) "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matt. 1: 23)
(2) "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). By this verse a large number of Christian divines understand that Jesus was, "the very and eternal God." (The four Gospels by W.W. How D.D.)
(3) "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30)
(4) "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" (John. 14: 9)
According to some divines Jesus was acceptd as God by his disciples:-
"Thomas answered and said unto him (Christ),My Lord and my God."(John.20: 28)
Some of the contemporary Jews of Jesus conIdered that Jesus claimed divinity for himself:-
(1) "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." (John. 5: 18)
(2) "The Jews answered him (Christ), saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John. 10: 33)
The doctors of the Jewish religion declared Jesus "guilty of death"(Matt. 26: 66.) because he claimed divinity for himself. "The divinity of Christ", writes Eadie,(The Bible Ency. P. 135) "is the corner-stone of our faith". "Some in the early ages doubted or denied Christ's humanity." (ibid)
Hence from the Buddhist point of. view neither Jesus nor Shankaracharya can be the Buddha Maitreya, for they were deities, and not human beings. On the other hand, a Buddhist can consider the claim of Mohammed as the Buddha Maitreya, for he was a human being.
"Of human beings it is only the male sex"(Warren. pp. 14-15.) that can be Buddhas. "A woman or a eunuch or a neuter or a hermaphrodite,"(Ibid) cannot be a Buddha:-
"They're never of the female sex Nor as hermaphrodites appear, As eunuch are they never classed, Those destined for Buddhaship." (Ibid. P. 34.)
The Koran, like the Buddhist scriptures, declares that all the apostles of God, peace be on them all, were males: -"We have not sent (any apostles) before thee except men."(XII. P. 239)
"Men" is the translation of the word "Rejal" which means "Males." (The Persian Gem Dictionary P. 175.)
That Jesus and Shankaracharya were not eunuchs but males is uncertain. The lives of both these personages do not furnish evidence of unimpeachable character to prove that these were really males.
One incident of the life of Shankaracharya is worthy of notice. One woman, Bharti by name tries to defeat him in a controversy by putting him questions on the science of sexual love. He is unable to reply her, but promises to reply after a month. He then transfers his soul from his body into the body of a dead king, enjoys the wives of the king, and learns the sexual science practically. "And in the midst of these lovely women and their blandishments he forgot his promise." (Shankaracharya by C.N.K. Aiyer and S. Tattavabhusan pp. 46-8.)
If this incident is true, it shows that Shankaracharya was a eunuch, for he was incapable of learning the science of sexual love in his body, and therefore he had to transfer his soul into another body for learning the science of sexual love practically. Whether the incident be correct or incorrect, this much is a fact that the life of Shankaracharya does not furnish a positive proof that he had the male power.
"The Hebrews married early, about the fourteenth year." (The Holy Bible by Wordsworth. Vol.1.P.244. Foot Note) Why Jesus remained a bachelor upto the age of 33, seems strange. Probably be had become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He taught his elect disciples to follow his example:-
"There are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12)
In order to follow the example and precept of the master, in letter and spirit, a number of zealous Christians have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Their conduct is justified by the precept of the master:-
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off........if thy foot offend thee, cut it off.......if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark. 9:43-48)
The sexual organ being a cause of many sins, some of the zealous Christians, in the light of the above, have thought it fit to cut it off.
On the other hand, Mohammed was a male. Thanks to the propaganda of the Christian missionaries, the world knows it full well that he had many wives. He had daughters and Sons, His posterity exists upto the present.
In view of what is given above, a Buddhist can consider the claim of Mohammed for being the Buddha Maitreya. About the claims of Jesus and of Shankaracharya, a Buddhist shall ever remain in doubt, until he receives a positive proof that they were males, and not eunuchs.
"These are the five donations great,
The gift of treasure,
Gift of child,
The gift of wife, of royal rule,
And last, the gift of life and limb," (Warren. P. 79.)
We shall consider these gifts one by one.
The gift of treasure:- Shankaracharya was the son of a poor widow. He was born in poverty, and never acquired treasure in his life by following any profession.
Jesus was the Son of a poor "carpenter"(Matt. 13:55). After his birth he was laid "in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."(Luke. 2:7) "Had they been rich and great", writes W. W. How. D. D., "they would doubtless have been received into the inn. Room would have been found for them then." Jesus was himself a "carpenter,"(Mark. 6: 3) and could never acquire riches in his life-time.
Hence from the Buddhist point of view the claims of Jesus and of Shankaracharya cannot be considered for the Buddhahood.
Mohammed belonged to a family who were rich. The prophet acquired riches in his lifetime, and even before his call he was an "affluent merchant."(Mohammed, Buddha and Christ by M.Dods.D.D. P.19.) "The marriage with Cadijah placed Mahomet among the most wealthy of his native city." (Irving. P. 3.)
The Koran declares that the prophet was gifted with riches:-
"And did He not find thee needy, and hath He not enriched thee." (XCIII, P. 583.)
It being not the pleasure of God to favour Jesus or Shankaracharya with riches, it is a mistake to consider either of them as the Buddha Maitreya. Mohammed was gifted with riches, and hence his claim for the Buddhahood can be considered.
Gift of child.
"We have formerly sent apostles before thee and bestowed on them wives and children." (The Koran. XIII. P. 244.)
Jesus and Shankaracharya both died bachelors. The Christian scriptures and the Hindu works inform us thus. We take their testimony to be true.
Therefore from the Buddhist point of view the claim of Jesus and of Shankaracharya cannot be considered for the Buddhahood, because God had not gifted them with children. On the other hand, Mohammed was gifted with several children, and therefore his claim for the Buddhabood can be considerect.
The name of a son of the Buddha Maitreya is given out as "Brahmi Wardene Maitri." (Asiatick Researches, 1802, Vol. VII. P. 415.)
We identify "Brahmi Wardene Maitri" with Kasim. the son of the prophet.(Irving. P. 34) The correct spelling of "Brahmi Wardene Maitri" should be Brahm Wardhan Maitreya.
(a) Brahmi is connected with Brahma or Brahman of Sanskrit, both of which mean "God; the Maker; the First Cause," "The Creator." (Hindi English Dictionary by R. N. Lal.)
(b) Wardhan means:- "Increasing, a granter of prosperity, an epithet of Shiva. increase, growth, elevation, animation; educating, rearing, cutting and dividing." (S. E. Dictionary by L. R. Vaidya)
(c) Maitreya means "the Merciful."
God, the Merciful, has "the most excellent names." His name is Kasim, because He divides His bounties among His creatures. He alone is the Granter of prosperity. It is He alone who elevates, animates, and educates all creatures. "Kasim" is among the 99 names of Mohammed.(Panjsurah. P. 69.) The prophet himself was often called "Abu1-Kasim,"(Irving. P. 34.) "the father of Kasim." The word Kasim means "the divider and the cutter" (The Persian Gem Dictionary.)
Hence in view of the gift of child, and the remarkable coincidence of the name of the son of the prophet with the predicted name of the son of the Buddha Maitreya, it is apparent that Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, and not Jesus or Shankaracharya.
Gift of wife.
"We have formerly sent apostles before thee and bestowed on them wives and children." (The Koran. XII. p. 224.)
"Whose findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord." (Proverbs. 18 22)
God had not favoured Jesus and Shankaracharya with wives. As far as this blessing is concerned, they did not receive this "good thing", the "favour of the Lord." Hence a Buddhist, in guidance of his scriptures, cannot consider their claims for the Buddhaship.
On the other hand, Mohammed was gifted with several wives. If the ideal of the Old Testament and the Buddhist scriptures given above is correct, he was gifted with much good.
The Koran declares that the prophet was highly favoured of God:-
(1) "The favour of God hath been great towards thee." (IV. p. 89.)
(2) ".......His favour, towards thee hath been great." (XVII. p. 281)
One of his wives was Khadijah, may God be pleased with her. We identify her with "Chandre-Mukhi (Moon-face)",(Asiatiek Researches. 1802. Vol. VII. p. 415.) the predicted wife of the Buddha Maitreya. The correct spelling of Chandre Mukhi is Chandra Mukhi which means, "having a countenance beautiful as the moon," or a woman with "a face bright and beautiful as the moon."(H. E. Dictionary by R. N. Lal) The word "mukh" in Sanskrit means "mouth, the face; first, chief; principal." (Ibid)
The first wife of the prophet was Khadijah. She was "handsome and of high birth." (Irving. pp. 30-1) I think it was she whom the prophet loved most. As such she was the principal wife. After her death the prophet married several wives, and of all these he loved Aisha most. Then she became the chief wife. Aisha says:-
"I was never jealous of any of the prophet's wives except Khadija, although she was dead long since and I had not even seen her...sometimes I used to ask the prophet wondering whether Kkadija was a unique woman in the world. To this the prophet used to reply that really such was Khadija......." (B.M. quoted in The Ideal of Womanhood in Islam by Q. Abdul Haq. pp. 33-4.)
There are several words for the moon in Sanskrit, such as Soma, Indu.......The moon is an emblem of all purity or chastity:-
(a) The Buddha Gautama says:- "He who like the moon is chaste, pure......" (Rockhill. p. 192.)
(b) "All pure art thou like Mitra, the beloved, adorable like Aryaman, O Soma." (Rigveda Book I. 93: 3.)
(c)"..... . the drinkers of pure (Soma) ." (S.B.E. Vol. XXVI. Satpath-Brahmana. p. 234.)
"Even in the days of ignorance the title of Khadijah was Tahirah."(The Rahmat-ul-lil-alarnina l)y Q. M. Solitnan. Vol. II. p. 185.) The word Tahirah in Arabic means "the pure women," or "the chaste woman." "Tahir" means "pure." (Persian Gem Dictionary.)
It is therefore clear that Khadijah was Chandra Mukhi, the predicted wife of the Buddha Maitreya Mohammed.
Shankaracharya. was not gifted with a royal rule in his life.
Jesus, too, was not gifted with an earthly kingdom, and he never ruled any kingdom in his life. He says:-
"Foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven have nests: but the son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Matt. 8:20.)
From the above mentioned words it is clear that Jesus had not even a square inch of ground which he could call his own.
Some of the immediate disciples of Jesus and some of his countrymen believed that Jesus was a king:-
(a) "On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of Lord." (John. 12:12-13.)
(b) "We trusted," said Cleopas, "it was he (Christ) which should have redeemed Israel." (Luke. 24: 21)
(c) "When they (Apostles) therefore were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?" (Acts. 1:6.)
Some of the Christian divines consider Satan as "the prince of this world."(John. 14: 30.) In spite of this some of the Christians believe that "the same Jesus" shall return to this world and then he shall establish a kingdom upon the earth. This belief is very old, and is said to have come down to the modern Christians from the days of the twelve disciples.(Acts. 1: 6.) Jesus is called "king of kings, and lord of lords."(I. Tim. 6:15. Rev. 17:14.) We maintain that even if Jesus at all returns to the word he shall never establish a kingdom. Jesus was tried for blasphemy and for preaching insurrection in a Roman Law Court. What he gave out in the course of his trial clearly indicates that he was not gifted with a royal rule, and he shall never rule any kingdom in future also:-
"Then Pilate entered into the judgement hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered him. My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that 1 am a king............."(John. 18 33-7.)
Jesus and Shankaracharya not being gifted with a royal rule, a Buddhist, on account of the guidance of his scriptures, cannot consider their claims for the Buddhahood in question.
Mohammed was the Buddha Maitreya for he was "a victorious king." (Historian's History of the World. Vol. VIII. p. 130.)
Mohammed lived more than 60 years in this world, and died a natural death. He took part in several battles. In the battle of Ohod he was "very near losing his life."(Sale. P. 60, Foot note.) Providence saved his life at the battle of Honain.(Ibid. p. 181. Foot note.) Several attempts on his life ended in failure. Some of these are alluded to in the Koran:-
(1) "And (call to mind) when the unbelievers plotted against thee, that they might either detain thee (in bonds), or put thee to death, or expel thee (from the city); and they plotted (against thee:)" (VII. p 170.)
(2) "Mohammed and some of his followers.......performing their noon devotions, a company of the idolaters, who were in view, repented they had not taken that opportunity of attacking them, and therefore waited till the hour of evening prayer, intending to fall upon them then: but God defeated their........design" (Sale. p. 99. Foot note.)
(3) ".........the prophet going to the tribe of Koreidha (who were Jews) to levy a fine for the blood of two Moslems, who had been killed by mistake by Amru Ebn Ornmeya al Dimri, and they desired him to sit down and eat with them, and they would pay the fine; Mohammed complying with their request, while he was sitting they laid a design against his life, one Amru Ebn Jahash undertaking to throw a mill-stone upon him; but God withheld his hand, and Gabriel immediately descended to acquaint the prophet with their treachery, upon which he rose up and went away." (Ibid)
(4) ".........fifteen men conspired to kill Mohammed in his return journey from Tabuc by pushing him from his camel into a precipice, as he rode by night over the highest part of Al Akaba. But when they were going to execute their design, Hodheifa, who followed and drove the prophet's camel which was led by Ammer Ebn Yaser, hearing the tread of camels and the clashing of arms, gave the alarm, upon which they fled." (Ibid. p. 189.)
(5) ".........the Koreish, in pursuance of a resolution they had taken, had sent a select number to be-set Mohammed's house, and to kill him......the prophet having caused Ali to lie down on his bed to deceive the assassins, went out.......they could not see him." (Sale. p. 431.)
(6) The prophet was poisoned by a "Jewess of Kbaiber," (Ency. Br. XVII.) but this could not terminate his life. The prophet lived several years after the event.
The prophet was conscious that none could deprive him of his life. The Koran runs thus:-
"God will defend thee against (wicked) men."(V. p. 109.)
"Until this verse was revealed, Mohammed entertained a guard of armed men for his security, but on his receiving this assurance of God's protection, he immediately dismissed them." (Ibid. p. 109. Foot note.)
Jesus cannot be the Buddha Maitreya for, according to the Bible version he was "crucified"(Mark. 15: 25), in the prime of life, about the age of 33. Shankaracharya, too, cannot be the Buddha Maitreya, for he died at the age of "32",(Ency. Br. Vol. XXIV.) and could not attain the average life of the people of the time. Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, for he was gifted with the gift of life and limb, and he died a natural death, over 60 years of age.
According to the teachings of Buddhism, a man is his own saviour, and is to work out his salvation:-
"You yourself must make an effort, The Tathagatas (Buddhas) are only preachers, The thoughtful who enter the way are freed from the bondage of Mara." (The Dhammspada. S.B.E. Vol. X. P. 67.)
The last words of the Buddha Gautama to his followers were:-
"Work out your salvation with deligence."(Carus. p. 211. Narasu p. 22.)
The Koran very clearly gives out the same plan of salvation as taught by the Buddha Gautama:-
(1) "Dread the day wherein (one) soul shall not make satisfaction for (another) soul, neither shall any compensation be accepted from them, nor shall any intercession avail, neither shall they be helped." (II. p. 18.)
(2) "By the soul, and Him who completely formed it, and inspired into the same its (faculty of distinguishing, and power of choosing,) wickedness and piety; now is he who purifies the same, happy; but he who hath corrupted the same, is miserable." (XCI. p. 582.)
The explanation of the above as given in Mohammed Ali's translation of the Koran :-"Note the Quranic law of salvation; it is the purification of the soul from all dross that makes the man attain the goal, and its corruption by indulging in evil that makes him fail in attaining the true object of his life." (Foot Note. 2746.)
(3) "And whosoever shall have wrought good of the the weight of an ant, shall behold the same. And whosoever shall have wrought evil of the weight of an ant, shall behold the same." (XCIX. p. 587.)
A number of traditions from the prophet point to the same plan of salvation, the prophet being only a warner:-
(1) "Abu Hurera relates:- When this verse was revealed, Warn your relations, the apostle of God sent for the Koreish, and they all gathered (to hear him). He warned them in general, and (then) in particular, and said, '0 children of Kaab bin-Looee, deliver yourself from hell, O children of Morrah-bin-Kaab, deliver yourself from hell,O children of Abd-Shams, deliver yourself from hell, O children of Abd Manaf, deliver yourself from hell, O children of Abd-al-Mottalib, deliver yourself from hell, O Fatema deliver thyself from hell, for I have no authority before God (if He wants to punish you). Certainly I have relationship with you, and I shall try to maintain it (by doing good to you).'" (M. Vol. I. p. 354.)
(2) "Aisha relates:- When this verse was sent down, Warn your relations, the apostle of God stood up on the mount Safa and said, O Fatema, the daughter of Mohammed, O Safiah, the daughter of Abd-al-Mottallib, and O ye children of Abd-al-Mottalib, I cannot save you from (being punished by) God, (if He wants to punish you). Certainly if you like you can take any thing from my property.'" (M. Vol. I. p. 355.)
(3) "Abu Hurera relates;- When this verse was sent down upon the apostle of God, Warn your near relations, he said, 'O Koreish, purchase your lives from God (in return of good actions); before God I cannot be of any use to you. O children of Abd-al-Mottalib, I cannot be of any use to you'........." (Ibid.)
According to Christian divines the following is the plan of salvation:-
"Christ came into the world to offer himself a sacrifice for sin." (Eadie. p. 133)
"It has been well said that the sum and substance of the Bible is, 'Jesus Christ crucified to save lost sinners'.........Its great theme is salvation by the 'woman's seed', and its great object is to summon attention to the 'lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.'" (Ibid. p. 134.)
This Christian view of salvation is based upon some such passages of the Bible:-
(1) "Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Is 43: 6.)
(2) "Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1: 29.)
It being plain from the above that according to Christian divines every individual is not his own saviour, but Jesus is the saviour of all humanity. Therefore Jesus cannot be the Buddha Maitreya.
Shankaracharya, according to majority of Hindus, was not an inspired teacher, and had not taught a plan of salvation of his own, different from what the Hindus believed to be correct, and therefore we leave him out of consideration.
Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, for he preached the same plan of salvation as the Buddha 'Gautama.
The Tathagatas (Buddhas) are only preachers." (The Dhammapada. S. B. E. Vol. X. p. 67.)
"You yourself must make a effort, The Tathagatas (Buddhas) are only preachers.
The Koran very clearly gives out the same plan of salvation as the Buddhist scriptures, and declares in most unambiguous terms that Mohammed is only a preacher:-
(1) "Say, O men, verily I am only a public preacher unto you. And they who believe and do good works shall obtain forgiveness and an honourable provision. But those who endeavour to make Our signs of none effect (shall be) the inhabitants of hell." (XXII. p. 332.)
(2) "The duty of (Our) apostle is only public preaching." (XXIV. p. 351)
(3) "Answer, Signs are in the power of God alone, and I am (no more than) a public preacher." (XXIX. p. 392)
(4) "Thou art (commissioned to be) a preacher only." (XIII. p. 240.)
(5) "Verily, I am no more than a denouncer of threats, and a messenger of good tidings unto people who believe." (VIII. p. 164.)
(6) "He is no other than a public preacher." (VIII. p. 164)
(7) "Say, O Mohammed, unto the idolaters, Verily I am no other than a warner." (XXXVIII. p. 448)
(8) "Verily We have revealed unto thee the book (of the Koran) for (the instruction of) mankind, with truth. Whoso shall be directed (thereby), (shall be directed) to the advantage of his own soul; and whoso shall err, shall err only against the same; and thou (art) not a guardian over them" (XXXIX. p. 453)
(9) "But if (those to whom thou preachest) turn aside (from thy admonitions), verily We have not sent thee (to be) a guardian over them; thy duty ía preaching only." (XLII. p. 472)
(10) "Thy duty ía preaching only." (XVI. p. 264)
(11) "Say, I am a public preacher." (XV. p. 255)
(12) "Verily unto thee (belongeth) preaching (only) ." (XIII. p. 244)
(13) "Verily thou art a preacher (only), and God is the Governor of all things." (XI. p. 211)
Christians consider Jesus as the "saviour of the world,"(John. 4: 42) and Jesus never gave out in his lifetime that he was "only a preacher," and hence he cannot be the Buddha Maitreya.
According to majority of the Hindus Shankaracharya was an uninspired teacher. Hence we leave him out of consideration.
Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, because he preached that he was only a preacher.
All Buddhas are preachers, but every preacher cannot be a Buddha. The Buddhist scripture, Saddharma-Pundrika fixes the character of an ideal preacher:-
"The strength of charity is my abode; the apparel of forbearance is my robe; and voidness (selflessness) is my seat: let (the preacher) take his stand on this and preach. When clods, sticks, or pikes, or abusive words, or threats fall to the lot of the preacher, let him be patient and thinking of me." (Narasu. p. 56. S.B.E. Vol. XXI. p. 222.)
Elsewhere we have shown in details that Mohammed is a matchless model of charity and forbearance. Here we only refer to the prophet's preaching at the town of Tayef:-
"Mahomet remained about a month in Tayef, seeking in vain to make proselytes among its inhabitants. When he attempted to preach his doctrine, his voice was drowned by clamours. More than once he was wounded by stones thrown at him, and which the faithful Zeid endeavoured to ward off. So violent did the popular fury become at last that he was driven from The city, and even pursued for some distance beyond the walls by an insulting rabble of slaves and children." (Irving. p. 72.)
"Stirred to hasten the departure of the unwelcome visitor, the people hooted him through the streets, pelted him, and at last obliged him to flee from the city, pursued by a relentless rabble. Blood flowed from both his legs; and Zeid, endeavouring to shield him, was wounded in the head. The mob did not desist until they had chased him two or three miles across the sandy plain to the foot of the surrounding hills. There wearied and mortified, he took refuge in one of the numerous orchards and rested under a vine."(Life of Mohammed by S.W.Muir. p. 109.) "How intense was the faith which sustained the prophet even in this hour of humiliation can best be seen from the touching prayer uttered at this time:-
"O Lord, I make my complaint unto Thee, of my helplessness and insignificance. But Thou art the Lord of the poor and the feeble, and Thou art my Lord. To whom wilt Thou abandon me? if Thy wrath be not upon me, I have no concern, but rather Thy favour compasseth me about the more. I seek for refuge in the light of Thy countenance. It is Thine to show anger until Thou art pleased. it is Thine to chase away the darkness. There is none other power, nor is there any resource but in Thee.'" (Islam as a Missionary Religion by Haines. pp. 27.28.)
After a time the town of Tayef wanted to submit to the prophet, and sent a delegation. Contrary to their expectation, and much to their surprise, "the delegates were graciously received."(Haines. P. 46) It is a laudable example of the forbearance and selflessness of the prophet that when the town surrendered to him, no general massacre of the inhabitants took place, and even no vengeance was taken for the personal injuries. His forbearance reaches the glorious climax. No indemnity, no fine, and no tribute from the surrendered! At the same time his spirit of goodwill and charity manifests itself. "All the spoils taken" from the enemy are returned. Over and above the other favours, the prophet makes "a present of 100 camels" to the people of the town.
In the light of what is given above, it is evident that the ideal of a preacher mentioned in Saddharma-Pundrika finds a literal fulfilment in the person of Mohammed. Such a real instance of goodwill, charity, forbearance, and selflessness, and the literal fulfilment of the predicted ideal is not found in the life of Jesus or of Shankaracharya. Hence Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, and not Jesus or Shankaracharya.
The Buddhist scripture, Saddharma-Pundrika, gives another important characteristic of the ideal preacher:-
"While he is living lonely in the wilderness I will send him gods and goblins in great number to keep him company."(S. B. E. Vol. XXI. P. 225.)
The above passage makes mention of two kinds of spiritual intelligencies, one kind are-called gods, or the righteous spirits, the other kind are called goblins, or evil spirits. These come to the ideal preacher when he is alone. The Koran gives it out that these two kinds of spirits approached the prophet in great number when he was alone in wilderness:-
(1) "When the servant of God (the prophet) stood up to invoke Him, it wanted but little that (the genii) had pressed on him in crowds (to hear him to rehearse the Koran.)" (LXXII. p.556)
(2) "Say, It hath been revealed to me that a company of genii attentively heard (me reading the Koran) and said, Verily we have heard a discourse which directeth unto the right institution: wherefore we believe therein.......there are some amongst us who are upright; and there are some others who are otherwise: we are ot different ways......(there are some) Moslems amongst us; and (there are others) of us who swerve from righteousness" (LXXII. p. 555-6.)
The observations of some of non-Muslims are worth quoting here:-
(1) "Thus driven ignominiously from his hoped for place of refuge, and not daring to return openly to his native city, he remained in the desert until Zeid should procure a secret asylum for him among his friends in Mecca. In this extremity, he had one of those visions or supernatural visitations which appear always to have occurred in lonely or agitated moments, when we may suppose him to h~±ve been in a statement of mental excitement. It was after the evening prayer, he says, in a solitary place in the valley of Naklah between Mecca and Tayef. He was reading the Koran, when he was overheard by a passing company of Gins or Genii. These are spiritual beings, some good, others bad, and liable like men to future rewards and. punishments. Hark! give ear! said the Genii one to the other. They paused and listened as Mahomet continued to read. 'Verily', said they at the end, 'we have heard an admirable discourse, which directeth to the right institution; wherefore we believe therein."
This spiritual visitation consoled Mahomet for his expulsion from Tayef, showing that though he and his doctrines might be rejected by men, they were held in reverence by spiritual agencies." (Irving. pp. 72-3.)
(2) "In an empty room he (the prophet) professed to be unable to find a sitting place.........all the seats being occupied by angels." (Mohammed by S.D.Margoliouth. p.88)
The characteristic of an ideal preacher mentioned in Saddharma-Pundrika is not fulfilled in case of Jesus or Shankaracharya. Hence neither of them can be the Buddha Maitreya.
The characteristic is literally fulfilled in the case of Mohammed, and hence he is the Buddha Maitreya.
The Buddhist scripture, Dhammapada, gives a characteristic of the true followers of Buddhas:-
"You yourself must make an effort, The Tathagatas (Buddhas) are only preachers, The thoughtful who enter the way are freed from the bondage of Mara." (S.B.E. Vol. X. p. 67.)
The word Mara means "the evil one, the tempter, the destroyer." (Carus. p. 251.)
Therefore Mara is Satan or Devil.
According to the Koran Mohammed taught that Satan has no power over true servants of God:-
(1) "(The devil) said, 0 Lord.....I will surely tempt them (to disobedience) in the earth: I will seduce them all, except (such) of them as shall be Thy chosen servants." (XV. p. 253.)
(2) "Verily (as to) My servants, thou shalt have no power over them; but (over) those only who shall be seduced, and who shall follow thee, And hell is surely denounced unto them all" (Ibid.)
(3) "(as to) My servants, thou devil shalt have no power over them; for thy Lord is a sufficient Protector (of those who trust in Him)." (XVII. p. 278.)
Hence according to the teachings of Mohammed it is clear that all those who submit to God entirely, are free from the bondage of Mara, and he has no dominion over them.
Jesus, the Christian scriptures inform us, has acknowledged Satan.
"THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD." (John. 12: 31.)
Saint Paul, like Jesus, considers Satan as
"THE GOD OF THIS WORLD." (2. Cor. 4; 4.)
If what is given above is correct, it is clear, that from the point of view of the teachings of Jesus all men are in the bondage of Mara in this world. None can be free from the bondage of Mara so long as he is in this world
"Man, since his fall, is under the tyranny and ~slavery of Satan." (Bible Concordance by Cruder. p. 130.)
Hence Jesus cannot be the Buddha Maitreya.
Shankaracharya, too, cannot be the Buddha Maitreya as be did not preach the gospel of freedom from the bondage of Mara.
Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, for he preached the glad tidings of the freedom from the bondage of Mara to all the righteous servants of God.
(1) "Two absolutely holy and perfectly enlightened Buddhas will not appear in a world smultaneously." (Anguttara Nikaya by Gooneratne. p. 39.)
(2) "This is an impossibility, an occurrance for which there can be no cause, that is one world two Arahat Buddhaa supreme should arise at one and the same time-such a thing can in nowise be." (S. B. E. Vol. XXXVI. Questions of King Milinda. part II p. 47)
(3) "When a perfect all-enlightened Buddha appears, no two Buddhas appear at the same time." (The Life and Teachings of Buddha by Anagarika Dharmapala p. 84.)
From what is quoted above it is apparent that according to the Buddhist scriptures, and the opinion of the Buddhist divines, it is impossible that two fully enlightened and inspired teachers can exist in a country at the same time.
In the days of Jesus, and in the same country of Judea in which Jesus lived and taught, there was another inspired teacher whose name was John the Baptist:-
(1) "And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they,came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into,prison. Then arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he, that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou barest 'witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him Christ)" (John. 3: 23-6)
(2) Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." (John. 4:1)
Jesus himself admitted that John the Baptist was an inspired teacher, and "more than a prophet." (Matt. 11:9)
Contemporary with Shankaracharya, in the country of India, there was a teacher of equal note, named Kumarila Bhatta.
Hence neither Jesus nor Shankaracharya can be the Buddha Maitreya.
Mohammed was an inspired teacher, and he did not recognise any inspired teacher in his days as did Jesus, and hence he is the Buddha Maitreya.
According to Milindapanha Buddhas are "self-dependent, teacherless, lonely, as one horn of a rhinoceros." (The Manual of Mystic by Woodward. p. 6. Foot Note.)
Buddhas do not acquire spiritual knowledge from any "HUMAN SOURCE" (Romantic History of Buddha by Beal. p. 241.)
"traditional instruction." (Sutta Nipata by Fausboll. p. 177.)
The Buddha Gautama is reported to have said:- "I am not to be taught by any in the world." (Udanavarga by Rockhill. p. 91.)
"Upaka, the naked ascetic" (Mejhima Nikaya by Silacara. p. 153.) asked the Buddha Gautama who his teacher was, the Buddha replied:-
"Self-taught; whom should I master call? That which I know I learned of none, My fellow is not on earth, Of human or of heavenly birth." (Ibid. p. 154.)
Shankaracharya had a spiritual teacher whose name was "Govind Swami." (Bharetyacharitambudhi. p. 453.)
Jesus became enlightend after being baptized of John the Baptist:-
"It came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straight-way coming out of water, he saw the heavens opened, and the spirit like a dove descending upon him: and there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark. 1:9-11)
It shall not, therefore, be wrong if we consider John the Baptist the spiritual teacher of Jesus. Jesus called him "more than a prophet." (Matt. 11: 9.) The respect and honour of Jesus for John the Baptist can be very well gathered from the following words of Jesus:-
"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a qreater than John the Baptist." (Matt. 11:11)
It is written in the Gospel of Infancy that Jesus hada "SCHOOL-MASTER, ZACCHAES." (The Popular Life of Buddha by Lillie. p. 30.)
Mohammed had no creature for his teacher.
The Koran is explicit on the point:-
"Believed therefore in God and His apostle, the illiterate prophet." (VII. p. 180.)
"Illiterate" is the translation of the Arabic word "Omme," or "Ummi." According to Mr. Mohammed Ali, the translator of the Koran, "the Ummi Prophet Conveys any one of the following three significances, viz.
(1) one who knows not reading or writing;
(2) one from among the Arabs; and
(3) one coming from Mecca. (Foot note. 950.)
The word Ummi is from "Umm" which means "mother." (Javahar-al-lughat. p. 37; and Others.)
Therefore the, word, Ummi, means one who is as "teacherless" as a new born child from his mother's womb.
There is evidence in the Koran that the prophet was unable to read and write before his call:-
"Thou couldst not read any book before this; neither couldst thou write it with thy right hand: then had the gain-sayers (justly) doubted (of the Divine original thereof) ." (XXXIX. p. 391-2.)
There is evidence in the Koran that Mohammed did not receive any help from any creature in composing the Koran:-
(1) "And the unbelievers say, This (Koran) is no other then than a forgery which he hath contrived, and other people have assisted him therein: but they utter an unjust thing and a falaehood." (XXV. p. 353.4)
(2) "We (also) know that they say, Verily a (certain) man teacheth him (to compose the Koran). The tongue of (the person) unto whom they incline, is a foreign (tongue); but this, (wherein the Koran is written,) is the perspicuous Arabic tongue." (XVI. p. 267.)
(3) "But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion: say, The direction of God is the (true) direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against God." (II. p. 18.)
(4) "If thou follow their (Jews', Christians' and of others) desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, verily thou wilt become (one) of the ungodly." (II. p. 21)
What is given above is sufficient to refute the view that Mohammed followed the instructions of the Jews or Christians, or other people, in composing the Koran.
In view of what is given above it is clear, that neither Jesus nor Shankaracharya can be the Buddha Maitreya, as they were not teacherless. Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya for he had no creature for his teacher.

According to Buddhist scriptures for every fully enlightened Buddha there is a terrestrial Bo-tree or Bodhi-tree:-
"I give a list of 7 Buddhas and their trees:- Vipasi, Patala (Bignonia); Sikki, Pundrika (Lotus) ; Visvabhu, Sala (Shoria robusta); Karakchch. 'handa, Saresha (Accaciasirisa); Kanakamuni, Udambra; Kasyapa, Nyagrodha (Banian tree); Sakyamuni, Asvatha (Ficus religiosa.)" (The Popular Life of Buddha by Lillie. p. 232.)
The Bo-tree for the Buddha Maitreya is "The tree of Dragon flower." (I-tsing by Takakusu. p. 213.)
According to Sanskrit English Dictionary by L. R. Vaidya the dragon flower is "The Champak tree".
According to Watters this tree is "Champac." (Vol. II. p. 52.)
I-tsing calls the Bo-tree of the Buddha Maitreya "Naga tree." (Takakusu. p. 213. foot note.)
According to Sanskrit English Dictionary by L. R. Vaidya, the Naga. Tree is "Naga kesser tree"
According to some of the modern Buddhist scholars, the Bo-tree of the Buddha Maitreya is the "Iron-wood tree." (M. B. J: 1929. p. 280.)
Iron-wood tree is the name "applied to a wide variety of trees." (Webster) "Any tree with unusually hard or heavy wood," (Chamber's. Ency.) can be called the Ironwood tree. Thus we cannot tell with certainly the name of the Bodhi tree of the Buddha Maitreya.
The name of the Bodhi tree of Mohammed at Hodebeyya also cannot be stated with certainty
(1) Sale, on the authority of several Arabic works considers it, "an Egyptian thorn", or "a kind of lote tree." (P. 494. Foot note.)
(2) According to Muslim it is "Samorah," or "Shajar-Rizwan."
(3) According to Munjid it is "Irak."
The Koran gives this tree the name, "Shajar." (XLVIII)
According to Arabic 'English Lexicon by Lane the word, Shajar, stands for "any tree with a hard stem;" hence we can say that the tree at Hodebeyya was a species of Iron-wood tree.
The view of Wahid-ul-zaman Khan, the translator of Muslim, about this tree is:-
"The tree is now no more, as it was cut down by Omar, on learning that people used to gather round about it." (M. Vol. V. pp. 2000-1.)
In my opinion Mr. Wahid-ul-zaman is wrong in his opinion. The reason is easy to deduce from the following traditions:-
(1) "Saeed-bin-Mosaib relates:-My father was one of those who took the oath of allegiance to the apostle of God under the tree; he said, "When we came to pilgrimage next year, we could not identify the place of the tree; if you can, you know more (than I do)." (M. Vol. V. pp. 2000-2)
(2) "Saeed-bin-Mosaib relates from his father next year the companions (of the prophet) forgot (the tree, and could not identify it.)' " (Ibid. p.2002.)
(3) "Saeed-bin-Mosaib relates:-I had seen the tree (of allegiance); when I came again there I could not identify it." (Ibid. p. 2002)
Shankaracharya had no Bo-tree. There is no mention of the Bo-tree of Jesus in the Gospels. Hence neither Jesus nor Shankaracharya can be the Buddha Maitreya. As Mohammed had a tree which for some reasons given here and elsewhere, we call the Bo-tree, hence he is the Buddha Maitreya.
According to some Buddhist works the Buddha Maitreya is to preach with great success under the Botree.(Watters. Vol. II. p. 52.) Some of the pious Buddhists have expressed a wish to hear the Buddha Maitreya under this tree. I-tsing once expressed this desire:-
"Let me look for the first meeting under the tree of Dragon-flower to hear the deep rippling voice of the Buddha Maitreya." (Takakusu. p. 213.)
This meeting is clearly mentioned in the Koran "Now God was well pleased with true believers when they swore fidelity unto thee under the tree, and He knew that which (was) in their hearts: wherefore He sent down on them tranquillity of mind." (XLVIII. pp. 494-5)
"Tranquillity of mind" is nothing else but Nirvana.
We now give a description of the Bo-tree meeting according to some of the individuals who were present there:-
(1) "Abe Zobair relates........'We took the oath of fidelity to him (the prophet). (At this time) Omar was holding him by the hand under the Samorah tree, we all took the oath of allegiance to him except Jad bin Kais Ansari who hid himself under the stomach of his camel'" (M.Vol.V.P.2000)
(2) "Jabir relates :- On the day of Hodebeyya.........the apostle of God said, 'This day you are the best of all the people of the world.' If I had my eye-sight I would have pointed out this spot to you." (Ibid. pp. 2000.1)
(3) "Jabir relates :-The apostle of God said, 'None of those shall enter hell who sware fidelity to me under the tree."' (Ta. Vol. V. p. 86. A. T. & M. quoted.)
(4) "Mikal bin Yasar relates:- On the day (of the meeting under the tree) I myself saw the apostle of God receiving allegiance, and I was with-holding the branch of the tree from over his head..........We did not take the oath of allegiance (for fighting) unto death, but (we took the oath) for not deserting him." (M. Vol. V. p. 2001)
As no Bo-tree is known for Jesus and for Shankaracharya, hence the Bo-tree meeting for these is out of question. As a Bo-tree is known for Mohammed, and the meeting under this tree is famous in the history of Islam, hence he is the Buddha Maitreya.
According to Buddhist scriptures Buddhas gain victory over the Evil under the Bo-trees. The Buddha Gautama gained victory over Mara, the Satan, under Ficus Religiosa, at Bodh-Gaya.
We read in the Gospels that Jesus was tempted of the Devil for "40 days." (Luke. 4: 2) From the account given in Luke it is clear that Jesus did not gain victory over the Devil. The Devil only "departed from him for a season"(Luke. 4: 13) after the struggle, unconquered.
We now come to the last scene of struggle between Jesus and the Devil, Mara. Jesus says to his disciples a little before his alleged death according to church:-
"Hereafter I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." (John. XIV.30)
According to Christian divines here Jesus calls Devil "THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD."
To avoid the ambiguity I give the interpretation of this passage, quoted above, by the Right Rev. W. Walsham. How D. D.:-
"The whole passage is as follows: Satan cometh to put forth his strength against me, he cannot prevail against me, for he can find no sin in me. Nevertheless I shall suffer him to effect the death of my body in obedience to the will of the Father that I should die for the world, thus the whole world shall know that I love the Father." (The Four Gospels.)
If the above interpretation is correct this conclusion is apparent:-
In his final struggle Jesus could not gain victory over Satan, but suffered martyrdom, and Mara remained the prince of this world as he was before.
St. Paul writes thus of the Devil:-
(1) "the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not." (II. Cor. 4 4.)
(2) "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." (Eph. 2: 2.)
The victory of Mohammed, under the tree at Hodebeyya, is mentioned in the Koran:-
"Verily We have granted thee a manifest victory that God May forgive thee thy preceding and thy subsequent sin, and may complete His favour on thee and direct thee in the right way." (XLVII. pp. 492-3)
This passage of the Koran breathes of the same spirit as the following words of the Buddha Gautama:
"Here have I loosed myself from the concourse of sorrows and have cast away the burden of them." (Romantic History of Buddhu BeaI. p. 237.)
The victory of the prophet over Mara is very clearly mentioned in the Hadis literature:-
(1) The prophet. "Do not go to women when (their) husbands are absent, (and they are alone), for Satan moves in the veins (or blood) of every mortal" The companions. "In your, veins as well?" The prophet. "In my veins as well, but God's help has made me a conqueror over him, and he has submitted to me." (Ta. Vol. III. p. 91.)
(2) "Aisha relates:- The apostle of God said, 'With every man there is a Satan.' I said, 'Is there one with you also?' (He replied), 'With me also there is one, but God has made me victorious over him, and so he has submitted to me.........'" (Ta. Vol. V. p. 21. A. and N quoted.)
There is no evidence to show that Shankaracharya was a conqueror of Mara. We have shown that Jesus could not conquer Mara. Hence neither Jesus nor Shankaracharya can be the Buddha Maitreya. Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya for he is the conqueror of Mara, the victory being gained under the tree at Hodebeyya.
Some works on Buddhism give an account of a Celestial Bo-tree.
(a) This tree is of huge dimensions.
(b) For every Buddha this Bo-tree is common.
(c) By this Bo-tree a Buddha is visited by the archangel. Brahma.
(d) After his enlightenment a Buddha looks at this Bo-tree with a fixed gaze.
"The night Buddha entered his mother's womb on the same night a huge white lotus, springing up from the waters and parting the earth 68 millions of Yojanas (a Yojana is the day's march of an army, 7 miles) rose up in the middle of the world of Brahma. This Lotus only the Guide of men and Brahma are able to see." (Lalitvistara quoted in the Popular Life of Buddha by Lille)
(1) "Mahomet was suddenly transported aloft to the Lotus tree called Sadaret, which flourishes on the right hand of the invisible throne of Allah. The branches of this tree extend wider than the distance between the sun and the earth." (Irving. p. 81.)
(2) "Abu Hurera relates :- The apostle of God said, 'In paradise there is a tree under the shade of which a rider can travel for a 7 hundred years" (T. Vol. II. p. 199.)
(3) "Abu Saeed Khudri relates :-The apostle of God said, 'In paradise there is a tree (such) that a rider can not cross its shade even in hundred years ." (Ibid)
"Bo-tree, the throne of the victories of all Buddhas........where all the Buddhas have crushed the desire of the flesh and beyond this none can pass, no, not even if he were a Sakka himself." (Jataka by Francis and Thomas. Vol. IV. p. 146-47)
According to the Koran this is the tree of' the farthest limit,
Sale gives this note:- "This tree, say the commentators, stands in the 7th heaven, on the right hand side of the throne of God, and is the utmost bound beyond which the angels must not pass." (P. 508 foot note)
"Ibn Abbas relates :-It is called the tree of the farthest limit for the knowledge of the angels ends there and none has passed beyond it save the apostle of God." (M. Vol. 1. p. 280)
Immediately after his enlightenment the arch-angel Brahma visited the Buddha Gautama by the Bo-tree.(Majjhima Nikaya by Silacara. p. 151.) The same thing happened to Mohammed, exactly like the Buddha Gautama.
The Koran runs thus:- 'He (the prophet) also saw him (archangel Gabriel) by the Lote-tree beyond which there is no passing." (LIII. p. 508)
"Then the World Honoured One, having risen from his lion throne, and gone out a short distance from the Bodhi tree, and sitting down with his legs crossed, remained immovable during other 7 days, beholding the Bodhi tree without removing his eyes,.....in after times a tower was erected on this spot, and called 'Not lifting the eyes.' " (Romantic History of Buddha by Beal. p. 237)
The Koran also speaks of the same thing of Mohammed:- "He saw him another time by the lote-tree, beyond which there is no passing: near it is the garden of (eternal) abode. When the lote-tree covered that which it covered, (his) eye-sight turned not aside, neither did it wander: and he beheld (some) of the greatest signs of his Lord." (LIII. p. 508)
The Bo-tree gaze of the prophet is mentioned in the Hadis literature:- "Anas relates The apostle of God said, 'When the command of God covered that tree, it became such that no creature can describe its beauty.' " (M. Vol. I. P. 281.)
There being no celestial Bo-tree known for Shankaracharya, and for Jesus, hence neither of them can be the Buddha Maitreya. Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya for the description of his celestial Bo-tree coincides with what is mentioned about tree in the Buddhist scriptures.
"After this, Bhagvat spoke to the venerable Subhuti, 'Wherever there is, O Subhuti, the possession of signs, there is falsehood; wherever there is no possession of signs, there is no falsehood. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen (known) from no signs as signs.'"
"The Vagrakkhedika or Diamond Cutter." (S. B. E. Vol. XLTX. p. 115.)
"Jesus had often appealed to the witness of his works in arguing with the unbelieving Jews" (The Four Gospels by Rv. Rev. W. W. How. D. D.) and was in "possession of signs"
(1) "If I do not the works, of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." (John. 10: 37-38.)
(2) "..............the same works that I do, bear witness of me?" (John. 5: 36)
(3) ".........believe me for the very works' sake." (John. 14: 11)
"Jesus wrought his miracles with surprising frequency. The miracles as performed by Jesus, exceed thirty in number." (Eadie. p. 440) The signs that Jesus showed were a convincing proof to some of the Jews of his time that he was sent of God:-
(1) "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a rifler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God him." (John. 3:1-2)
(2) "How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" (John. 9:16)
(3) "If this man were not of God, he could do nothing." (John. 9: 33)
(4) "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs (Acts. 2:22)
(5) "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with diverse miracles." (Hebrews 2: 4)
Some of the modern Christians have a belief like some of the Jews of the time of Jesus:-
"The working of a miracle proves that the man who performed it is God's messenger, and speaks God's truth; for God works by him, and would not so lend His power to an impostor." (Eadie. p. 440)
In view of what the Buddha had said, the wonders, miracles, or signs that Jesus possessed, performed in public to convince people of his Divine mission, are, in the opinion of a devout Buddhist quite sufficient to disqualify him from being the Buddha Maitreya.
The attitude of Shankaracharya towards signs is not definitely known. It is said he had performed some wonderful supernatural works to convince his opponents. However we are leaving him out of consideration chiefly because "we know very little of Sankara's life story." (Ssnkara the Sublime by Dhirendra Pal. p. III.)
I give two instances which clear up the position of Mohammed regarding miracles : -
(1) "The following miracles were demanded of Mohammed by Koreish as proofs of his mission," (Sale. p. 281) whereupon this passage is said to have been revealed:-
"And they say, We will by no means believe on thee, until thou cause a spring of water to gush forth for us out of the earth; or thou hast a garden of palm trees and vines, and thou cause rivers to spring forth from midst thereof in abundance; or thou cause the heaven to fall down upon us, as thou hast given out, in pieces; or thou bring down God and the angels to vouch (for thee); or thou hast a house of gold; or thou ascend by a ladder to heaven: neither will we believe thy ascending (thither alone); until thou cause a book to descend unto us, (bearing witness of thee), which we may read. Answer, My Lord be praised! Am I (other) than a man, sent (as an apostle)?" (XVII. p. 281)
(2) ".............the Meccans required that Mohammed should either show them an angel descending from heaven in their sight, or raise their dead fathers, that they might discourse with them, or prevail on God and His angels to appear to them in a body,"(Sale. p. 131) whereupon this passage is said to have been revealed:-
"And though We had sent down angels unto them, and the dead had spoken unto them, and We had gathered together before them all things in one view; tbey would not have believed unless God had so pleased: but the greater part of them know (it) not" (VI. p. 131.)
From the Koran it is clear that Mohammed was not in "possession of signs":-
(1) "They have sworn by God, by the most solemn oath, that if a sign came unto them they would certainly believe therein; Say, Verily signs are in the power of God alone." (VI. p. 131.)
(2) "They say, Unless a sign be sent down unto him from his Lord, (we will not believe). Answer, Signs are in the power of God alone; and I am (no more than) a public preacher." (XXIX. p. 392.)
(3) "The infidels say, Unless a sign be sent down unto him from his Lord we will not believe. Thou art (commissioned to be) a preacher only, (and not a worker of miracles)." (XIII. p. 240)
Like the words of Buddha the Quran declares that none of the apostles had the power to work miracles:-
(1) "We have formerly sent apostles before thee........and no apostle had (the power) to come with a sign, unless by the permission of God." (XIII. p. 244)
(2) "Their apostles replied unto them, We are no more than men like unto you; but God is bountiful unto such of His servants as He pleaseth: and tt is not in our (power) to give you a miraculous demonstration (of our mission), Unless by the permission of God." (XIV. p. 246)
(3) "We have sent (a great number of) apostles before thee; (the histories of some) of whom We have related unto thee, and (the histories of others) of them We have not related unto thee; but no apostle had the power to produce a sign, unless by the permission of God (XL. p. 762)
The Koran gives the reason why Mohammed was not in "possession of signs":-
"Nothing hindered Us from sending thee with miracLes, except that the former (nations) have charged them with imposture." (XVII. p. 277)
The Koran gives several instances of what is stated above. We quote a few of them:-
(a) "We gave unto the tribe of Thamud, (at their demand), the she-camel visible (to their sight); yet they dealt Unjustly with her: and We send not a prophet with miracles, but to strike terror." (XVIII. p. 277)
(b) "We heretofore gave unto Moses (the power of working) nine evident signs. And do thou ask the children of Israel (as to the story of Moses); when he had come unto them, and Pharaoh said unto him, Veriy I esteem thee, O Moses, to be deluded by sorcery." (XVII. pp. 2823)
(c) "And when Jesus the son of Mary said, O children of Israel, verily I (am) the apostle of God (sent) unto you.........and when he produced unto them evident miracles, they said, This (is) manifest sorcery." (LXI. p. 534)
We do not wonder when we come across the remark of Bosworth Smith who wrote: "Mohammedanism is a system in many respects unique, but in none more so than in this, that of the great religions of the world, it does not, in its authoritative documents rests its claims to reception upon miracles."(Mohammed and Mohammedanism. p. 156.) "There are some 17 places in the Koran in which Mohammed is challenged to work a sign, and he answers them all to the same effect,"(Ibid. p. 158) i.e. in the negative. Hence in view of what is stated above it is clear that Mohammed is the Buddha Maitreya, and not Jesus or Shankaracharya.
(a) "And the Blessed One replied: Is it not a wonderful thing, mysterious and miraculous to the worldling, that a sinner can become a saint, that he who attains to true enlightenment will find the path of truth and abandon the evil ways of selfishness? The Bhikshu who renounces the transient pleasures of the world for the eternal bliss of holiness, performs the only miracle that can truly be called a miracle." (The Gospel of Buddha by Carus. p. 151.)
(b) "On one occasion some of his adherents entreated the Buddha to permit his missionaries to work wonders, as that would elevate them in the eyes of others. The Buddha replied as follows: 'There are three kinds of miracles. The first is the miracle of power, in which extraordinary power is manifested. as in walking on water, exorcising devils, raising the dead, and so forth. When the believer sees such things his faith may become deepened, but it would not convince the unbeliever, who might think these things are done by the aid of magic. I therefore see danger in such miracles, and I regard them as shameful and repulsive. The second is the miracle of prophecy. such as thought-reading, sooth-saying, fortune-telling, etc. Here also there would be disappointment, for these too in the eyes of the unbeliever would be no better than extraordinary magic. The last is the miracle of instruction. When any of my disciples brings round a man by instruction to rightly employ his intellectual powers, that is the true miracle.'" (The Essence of Buddhism by Narasu. pp. 51-2. Kevadda Sutta quoted.)
Mohammed was conscious that he was given the true miracle, the miracle of instruction. His instruction is the Koran, and it speaks of itself:-
(1) "Say, Verily, if men and genii were purposely assembled, that they might produce (a book) like this Koran, they could not produce (one) like unto it, although the one of them assisted the other." (XVII. p. 281.)
(2) "If ye be in doubt concerning the revelation which We have sent down to Our servant, produce a chapter like unto it, and call upon your witnesses besides God, if ye say truth. But if ye do (it) not, nor shall (ever be able to) do (it), justly fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the unbelievers." (II. p. 4.)
The Koran calls its verses signs:-
"(1) When Our evident signs are recited unto them they who hope not to meet Us (at resurrection). say, Bring a different Koran from this or make some change therein." (X. p. 200)
(2) "(The unbelievers) say, Unless he comes unto us with a sign from his Lord, (we will not believe on him). Hath not a plain declaration come unto them of that which (is contained) in the former volumes (of scripture, by the revelation of the Koran) ?" (XX. p. 315.)
(3) "Thus do We send down (the Koran) being evident signs." (XXII. p. 328)
(4) "The same (the Koran is) evident aigns." (XXIX. p. 392)
"Mohammed's opponents answered this by requiring him to work a miracle in proof of his Divine mission, but he refused saying that he was sent to preach the truth, and not to work miracles, appealing at the same time, to the Koran, he challenged his adversaries to produce any work that could rival it in lbeauty and sublimity. No proof has been adduced that Mohammed at any time descended to any artifices or pseudo miracles to enforce his doctrines or to establish his apostolic claim. He appears on the contrary 'to have relied entirely upon reason............" (The Apology for Mohammed and Koran by Davenport. p. 19.)
The prophet himself gave out that he was given the Koran as a sign:-
(1) "Abu Hurera relates :- The apostle of God said, 'Every apostle was given the same signs that were given to the apostle before him, and people believed on them. But the sign given to me is the Koran that God of power and glory has revealed to me....'" (M. Vol. 1. p. 256.)
(2) "Abu Hurera relates :-The apostle of God said, 'Among the apoatles there is none who is not given miracles in order to make people believe on him, and I am being given the revelation sent down by God............'" (Ta. Vol. V. p. 34. B. and M. quoted.)
Neither Jesus nor Shankaracharya calls hls instruction a sign, but Mohammed who Is the Buddha Maitreya, calls his instruction a sign.
".........the Blessed One..........gazed at Vesali with an elephant look." (S. B. E. Vol. XII. p. 64.)
"The Buddhas were accustomed, says Buddha-Ghosha, on looking backwards to turn the whole body round as an elephant does; because the bones in their neck were firmly fixed, more so than those of ordinary men. (Ibid. P. 64. foot note.)
"The neck-bone of all Buddhas is not like the links of a chain but consists of one single solid bone; hence when they wish to consider some object lying behind them, they cannot turn their heads backward, but the whole body, like that of an elephant, must follow the same motion." (The Legend of Gaudama by Bigandet. Vol. II. p. 35.)
There is clear evidence that Mohammed had such a neck-bone, and behaved like Buddhas:-
"If he turned in conversation towards a friend, he turned not partially, but with his full face, and his whole body." (The Life of Mohammad by Sir William Muir. pp. 511-12.)
Ali, the fourth Caliph, describes the prophet:
"..........When he would look this side or that side he would turn his whole body round." (Ta. Vol. VI. p. 99. T. quoted)
Once Ibn Abbas was going with the prophet, and they passed by a graveyard, and he relates:-
"The apostle of God..........turned round towards then (the buried) with his face, and said. 'O ye dwellers of the tombs............." (Ta. Vol. VI. p. 84. T. quoted)
There is an evidence of another kind. If a man possessing a neckbone like that of Buddhas were to bend down, his neck, back, and head must be in one straight line. The prophet was observed bending down during the prayer by his companions, and his head, the neck, and the back were found colinear. One of his companions, Abu Homaid Saaidi, relates that during the kneeling position in prayer the prophet "kept his neck in mid-position, he would neither lower down his head, nor keep it raised up (above the neck.)" (Ta. Vol. III. p. 196-7 B. T. and A. qaoted.)
Mr. Abul Hasan Mohammed Mohi-Uddin, the Judge of the High Court, of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad, considers by these words that during the kneeling position the head of the prophet remained "in one straight line with his back." (Ta. Vol. III. p. 197. foot note.)
There is no evidence to show that Jesus or Shankaracharya had neck-bones like those of Buddhas, and hence neither can be the Buddha Maitreya. Mohammed had his neckbone like those of Buddhas, and hence he is the Buddha Maitreya.

1 comment :

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.