Bahaism, Buddhism and Islam, conflict or one?

[Aupmanyav]

What I see in this forum are many (but not all) Christians denigrating all religions other than Christianity, and that is not based upon a bias, it is an actual fact that can be proven with post content.

The real problem is about proof. No one ever proved the existence of God / Allah and no prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi ever had a signed declaration from God / Allah. Without proof, what you say or what they say is bogus, vain talk.

 

[Trailblazer]

The real problem is about proof. No one ever proved the existence of God / Allah and no prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi ever had a signed declaration from God / Allah. Without proof, what you say or what they say is bogus.

There will never be proof so why not just disregard all of us believers in God and be happy with your atheist position?

 

[CG Didymus]

No, the grades of a school analogy is much too simplistic. What Baha'is believe might make what was taught in the earlier religions wrong, but not because whatever scriptures that had are wrong when they were revealed, but rather because they were misunderstood and/or mucked up by the followers of those religions since they were revealed.

From my perspective it is really a moot point what the older religions taught

Yes, I agree, the grade school analogy is too simplistic. Here's some basics of Buddhism...

Do Buddhists believe in God?
In a word, no. There is no divine creator god or supreme being in the Buddhist teachings, so that Buddhism is often called a nontheistic religion. The historical Buddha began as an ordinary person, who gained awakening by training his own mind and apprehending the true nature of reality. His enlightenment wasn’t bestowed through communion with a superior, external force but through his own efforts. And that’s a major point of the Buddhist story. From the Buddhist point of view, a personal god isn’t necessary: we each have the raw material to achieve our own liberation.

Creator in Buddhism?
Buddhism is a religion which does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.[1][2][3] It teaches that there are divine beings or gods (see devas and Buddhist deities), heavens and rebirths in its doctrine of saṃsāra (cyclical rebirth), but it considers none of these gods as a creator or as being eternal (they just have very long lives).[4] In Buddhism, the devas are also trapped in the cycle of rebirth and are not necessarily virtuous. Thus while Buddhism includes multiple gods, its main focus is not on them.

Can anyone become enlightened?
Buddhism teaches that everyone has the capacity for awakening. By following the path of practice the Buddha laid out, we can all eventually free ourselves from suffering, no matter who we are.

That said, most schools of Buddhism also teach that we each achieve enlightenment according to our karma—the consequences of our thoughts and actions—and we may have a pile of negative karma that will take a lot of work to clean up. The more skillfully we work at following the path, the better. It may take a long time, but we’ll get there.​

I think it is worth reading all that it says at each link, but what I quoted will do to make my points.
First, as we know Hinduism has multiple Gods. But it says, "a personal god isn't necessary", in Buddhism. So, does that include the "Abrahamic" God that the Baha'is believe in?

Next, Buddhism does not "include the belief in a creator deity". So, no, Buddhism doesn't believe in a deity like the creator deity of the Abrahamic religions.

Then, it says that "everyone has the capacity for awakening". So was Buddha special? Was he a manifestation? No, not if anyone can reach that same level of enlightenment. Plus, it takes many lifetimes of reincarnating to finally get to the level of being able to reach enlightenment.

So compared to any of the Abrahamic religions, what is all this? I don't see any thing that would make me think these ideas came from the same source as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha'i Faith. And this is just the basics. The only thing I see a Baha'i can do is to say this was all false. All based on misinterpretations of the "original" teachings, (that supposedly had a creator God) and were based on added traditions made up by the follows of the Buddha. Which my be true. All the Buddhist Scriptures could be made up by the Buddha's followers. But, again, Baha'is seem to support the Scriptures of all the past religions, while at the same time leaving loop holes by which they can deny anything they need to... or, as with the case of God, add in what they need to.

Then, Baha'is do the same thing with the prophecies. They leave out what they don't need and take what they can use to make Baha'u'llah Maitreya. But why are they trusted? When were they written and by whom? Yet, the Baha'is use them.

 

[Marcion]

First, as we know Hinduism has multiple Gods. But it says, "a personal god isn't necessary", in Buddhism. So, does that include the "Abrahamic" God that the Baha'is believe in?

Next, Buddhism does not "include the belief in a creator deity". So, no, Buddhism doesn't believe in a deity like the creator deity of the Abrahamic religions.

Then, it says that "everyone has the capacity for awakening". So was Buddha special? Was he a manifestation? No, not if anyone can reach that same level of enlightenment. Plus, it takes many lifetimes of reincarnating to finally get to the level of being able to reach enlightenment.

So compared to any of the Abrahamic religions, what is all this? I don't see any thing that would make me think these ideas came from the same source as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha'i Faith. And this is just the basics. The only thing I see a Baha'i can do is to say this was all false. All based on misinterpretations of the "original" teachings, (that supposedly had a creator God) and were based on added traditions made up by the follows of the Buddha. Which my be true. All the Buddhist Scriptures could be made up by the Buddha's followers. But, again, Baha'is seem to support the Scriptures of all the past religions, while at the same time leaving loop holes by which they can deny anything they need to... or, as with the case of God, add in what they need to.

Then, Baha'is do the same thing with the prophecies. They leave out what they don't need and take what they can use to make Baha'u'llah Maitreya. But why are they trusted? When were they written and by whom? Yet, the Baha'is use them.

You have to be carefull when you bring Hinduism under one umbrella as "having multiple Gods".
Hinduism is so varied that it is debatable whether Buddhism should not be considered to be just another part of the Tantric side of the Hindu spectrum.

Like in all cultures, Hinduism has both Vedic and Tantric elements and Buddhism in its original form is definitely more Tantric than Vedic. But this is not unique to Buddhism alone, there are many types of Tantra in India and beyond India.
The reasoning that Bahai uses to create the illusion of a chain of manifestations that keep improving religion is more of a Vedic thing, it is more theoretical than real, not very Tantric at all.

From the Tantric viewpoint this Bahai idea is not to be taken seriously, but the more Vedic people outside of the Bahai may get upset because it will conflict with their own Vedic viewpoint regarding spiritual authority. They will stamp their feet and shout "you naughty Bahai's, how can you spread your own theory around so persistently and irritate us with it!"

 

[CG Didymus]

You have to be carefull when you bring Hinduism under one umbrella as "having multiple Gods".
Hinduism is so varied that it is debatable whether Buddhism should not be considered to be just another part of the Tantric side of the Hindu spectrum.

Like in all cultures, Hinduism has both Vedic and Tantric elements and Buddhism in its original form is definitely more Tantric than Vedic. But this is not unique to Buddhism alone, there are many types of Tantra in India and beyond India.
The reasoning that Bahai uses to create the illusion of a chain of manifestations that keep improving religion is more of a Vedic thing, it is more theoretical than real, not very Tantric at all.

From the Tantric viewpoint this Bahai idea is not to be taken seriously, but the more Vedic people outside of the Bahai may get upset because it will conflict with their own Vedic viewpoint regarding spiritual authority. They will stamp their feet and shout "you naughty Bahai's, how can you spread your own theory around so persistently and irritate us with it!"

Just how general is the term "Hinduism"? Is it even more general than calling someone "Christian" when they are Baptist? Would some of the religions in India rather be called something more specific?

Then there are those "Hindus" here that don't fit the mold of what Baha'is have called "Hinduism". To fit their "progression", their should be an "original" Hinduism that believed in one God and believed that Krishna started it and was a "manifestation" of God and not an "incarnation" of God. Also, that they didn't teach reincarnation. Oh, and having Scriptures of that religion would be helpful.

So now from the Tantric pov... What are some of the issues with what the Baha'i Faith teaches? I'll take a quick look online and read up on some of the basics. Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is not to be condescending, but the Bahai response is from the Bahai website, which is a proselytising and apologetic website. Thus, their whole knowledge corpus is only that about all of the questions you asked. Honestly I am pretty surprised with your questions since they are actually objective and pertinent. I wish someone attempts to answer them.

That being said, if you intend to prove religions false overall, why not open a new thread that is relevant to that topic?

Cheers.

Sorry about "bottom feeding" off of your thread. And on many threads about the Baha'i Faith or started by Baha'is, I'll wait until it is somewhat derailed before asking my questions. Your OP's are far too deep for me, so sorry again, but in a lot of ways I feel I'm "dumbing" things down. But, in all of your threads the lack of adequate answers by most all the Baha'is is apparent. On my own I couldn't come up with the level of questions that you ask. If I get in the way and push the thread to far off track, just let me know and I'll back off.

Even without my questions, I'm learning lots of things that are problematic and even disturbing about what Baha'is say. Many years ago, I liked the Baha'i Faith. The basic beliefs of "One People, One World and that Religion is One" sounded so true. But then I learned more and more about the beliefs of other religions. Religions didn't fit into such a nice "progressive" revelation thing that the Baha'is were telling me.

If Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of the prophecies of all the religions... If Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad and the rest were all manifestations of God and brought a progressive knowledge of the one true God... I need more substantial evidence/proof. Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

The real problem is about proof. No one ever proved the existence of God / Allah and no prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi ever had a signed declaration from God / Allah. Without proof, what you say or what they say is bogus, vain talk.

I've "believed" in God three different times. Each time it was believing something different about who and what God is. Each time I felt his power, his light, and his love inside me and all around me. One of them was the Christian version of God... The Trinity of Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God, the Father. Now we've all seen some of the TV evangelists get up their and preach about the "Truth" of Jesus. They get the crowd all worked up into a frenzy. "Praise Jesus! Praise God! Now reach into your pockets and give your money so we can carry on this work of the Lord!" Snake Oil? It sure could be. But, for a while, I tried to believe. And by committing to following the teachings of Jesus, I, for like three months, felt like it was all real. Then once I started doubting and questioning, that feeling went away.

So do religions really need proof when they have something more powerful? That is "faith". Faith in believing whatever their religion tells them is true. If Christians believe in the devil and that Jesus rose from the dead, they have the proof... The Bible tells them so... sort of. It just takes a little interpretation of what a few verses say. If Baha'is say there is no devil and Jesus is dead and gone... Their Scriptures are the proof, because they trust it and love it and believe it. So same thing with God. The Baha'i God is an "unknowable essence". How they going to prove that their proof is Baha'u'llah, because he said so and they believe him.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it is worth reading all that it says at each link, but what I quoted will do to make my points.
First, as we know Hinduism has multiple Gods. But it says, "a personal god isn't necessary", in Buddhism. So, does that include the "Abrahamic" God that the Baha'is believe in?

Next, Buddhism does not "include the belief in a creator deity". So, no, Buddhism doesn't believe in a deity like the creator deity of the Abrahamic religions.

Then, it says that "everyone has the capacity for awakening". So was Buddha special? Was he a manifestation? No, not if anyone can reach that same level of enlightenment. Plus, it takes many lifetimes of reincarnating to finally get to the level of being able to reach enlightenment.

So compared to any of the Abrahamic religions, what is all this? I don't see any thing that would make me think these ideas came from the same source as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha'i Faith.

You don't see any thing that would make you think these ideas came from the same source as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha'i Faith, because these ideas did not come from any source that is even close to authentic. These ideas came from men who had passed them down through the centuries by oral tradition and then they changed them whenever they wanted to. The same thing could have happened to the Writings of Baha'u'llah if we did not have the Original Writings and a written Covenant which protected them from any alterations..

And this is just the basics. The only thing I see a Baha'i can do is to say this was all false. All based on misinterpretations of the "original" teachings, (that supposedly had a creator God) and were based on added traditions made up by the follows of the Buddha.

And that is what we say, which makes perfect logical sense.

Which may be true. All the Buddhist Scriptures could be made up by the Buddha's followers.

It is a known fact that these teachings were written by Buddha's followers.

The earliest Buddhist texts were passed down orally in Middle Indo-Aryan languages called Prakrits, including Gāndhārī language, the early Magadhan language and Pali through the use of repetition, communal recitation and mnemonic devices. These texts were later compiled into canons and written down in manuscripts.

Buddhist texts - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Buddhist_texts

But, again, Baha'is seem to support the Scriptures of all the past religions, while at the same time leaving loop holes by which they can deny anything they need to... or, as with the case of God, add in what they need to.

Baha'is do not add or omit anything. We simply go by what is in the authoritative Writings of the Baha'i Faith, period.

Then, Baha'is do the same thing with the prophecies. They leave out what they don't need and take what they can use to make Baha'u'llah Maitreya. But why are they trusted? When were they written and by whom? Yet, the Baha'is use them.

No, we do not do that. I don't know any Baha'is who try to prove that Baha'u'llah was Maitreya by using prophecies. We simply believe that Baha'ullah was Maitreya.

All this stuff about prophecies is just a smokescreen to distract from what really matters. Baha'u'llah either was or was not who He claimed to be and if He was then He was the Promised One of all the religions of the past, which would mean He was Maitreya.

How people interpret or misinterpret prophecies of any religion had nothing to do with who Baha'u'llah was, because who He was is not contingent upon fallible men who interpret prophecies. People can be mistaken about the meaning of any prophecy and thus trying to prove that Baha'u'llah was not who He claimed to be by using prophecies is an exercise in futility. What I just said is as logical as the day is long in an Alaskan summer.

 

[Dawnofhope]

According to the Quran all messengers were just men. God is absolutely cloven. The Bahai theology does not conform to any of the scripture it comes from, and honestly I cannot see any valid apologetics.

The are many problems with your OP and post. For example, if it is true the Quran that the Messengers were just men like the rest of us, then it fundamentally contradicts what Christianity has to say about Christ. Muslims are left having to discount the entire New Testament to make Christianity conform to the Quran. So you are essentially doing exactly what you accuse the Baha'is of doing.

The reality is that Muhammad wasn't an ordinary man like you and I. To even make such a comparison is to fundamentally misunderstand who Muhammad was and His importance for humanity and history. Through the Power of God, He was the bearer of a Divine Revelation whose influence and power is unparalleled in human history, except that of Christ. Further through the Hand of the Almighty He was enabled not only to revel the Quran but to bring forth a community of faithful followers, overcome His adversaries and unite the disparate tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.

To claim the Prophets of God are the same needs qualification. All Prophets are clearly not the same as history clearly testifies.

 

[Trailblazer]

To claim the Prophets of God are the same needs qualification. All Prophets are clearly not the same as history clearly testifies.

And as you probably know, Abdu'l-Baha explained the difference between the Prophets.

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?

Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.

The Three Kinds of Prophets

 

[Aupmanyav]

How they going to prove that Their proof is Baha'u'llah, because he said so and they believe him.

Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Bahaollah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or L. Ron Hubbard; obviously, your definition of proof differs from mine.

 

[firedragon]

The are many problems with your OP and post. For example, if it is true the Quran that the Messengers were just men like the rest of us, then it fundamentally contradicts what Christianity has to say about Christ. Muslims are left having to discount the entire New Testament to make Christianity conform to the Quran. So you are essentially doing exactly what you accuse the Baha'is of doing.

So what you are saying is that a Tu Quoque fallacy is sufficient Adrian? Thats what you just did.

The reality is that Muhammad wasn't an ordinary man like you and I. To even make such a comparison is to fundamentally misunderstand who Muhammad was and His importance for humanity and history. Through the Power of God, He was the bearer of a Divine Revelation whose influence and power is unparalleled in human history, except that of Christ. Further through the Hand of the Almighty He was enabled not only to revel the Quran but to bring forth a community of faithful followers, overcome His adversaries and unite the disparate tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.

I dont think I said Muhammed was an ordinary man. No offence, but I dont think Jesus was an ordinary man. I dont think Alexander was an ordinary man. And saying this, I dont say "they are all the same". See, this does not make the case for "manifestation of God". What I say is that Muhammed was just a man. Maybe he was an exceptional character. And Hart says he was the most influential man in history. But he was a human being, just the same as any other messenger. The Quran tells us not to distinguish between them. The Quran makes it very clear that they were just human. Thats it.

Your article "three kinds of prophets" contradicts the Qur'an. The problem I have been highlighting in this thread several times is that the knowledge of the Quran or any other scripture (that some Bahai's claim to have "studied") come from your websites. What ever they say you have just adopted blindly.

The messenger acknowledges in what was sent down to him from his Lord and those who have acknowledged. All acknowledged God, His angels, His books, and His messengers, "We do not make a distinction between any of His messengers;" and they said, "We hear and obey, forgive us O Lord, and to you is our destiny." - Qur'an 2:285

Sorry Adrian. What you have done in this post is just say "you too". A Tu Quoque fallacy. If you want to discuss "you too's", then that's perfectly fine in another thread with a relevant topic and OP.

 

[firedragon]

And as you probably know, Abdu'l-Baha explained the difference between the Prophets.

Yep. He contradicted your God's word. Vis a Vis, the Quran.

The messenger acknowledges in what was sent down to him from his Lord and those who have acknowledged. All acknowledged God, His angels, His books, and His messengers, "We do not make a distinction between any of His messengers;" and they said, "We hear and obey, forgive us O Lord, and to you is our destiny." - Qur'an 2:285

 

[Marcion]

Just how general is the term "Hinduism"? Is it even more general than calling someone "Christian" when they are Baptist? Would some of the religions in India rather be called something more specific?

Then there are those "Hindus" here that don't fit the mold of what Baha'is have called "Hinduism"

Hindu is a very loose term that was used for the people who lived across the river Indus as seen from the West.
Their cultures there were called Hinduism by outsiders although that would even have included Indian style Christians.

So its original meaning has nothing to do with religion.
Even now, the term Hindu is meant to loosely distinguish the many paths in India from mainly monotheism and any practice that originated outside of India.
So when it comes to understanding the worldviews in India, the term Hinduism is quite meaningless.

Christianity was kick-started by the Tantric Jesus and Paul (Simon), Islam by Muhammed but Judaism and the many Hindu worldviews did not have a single founder, they grew organically from within Jewish and Indian cultures.

The first great reformer of Tantra was Lord Shiva. If anyone should be pointed out as the father of systematic Tantra, it is Him. But Lord Shiva did not start a religion called Hinduism if indeed there is such a thing. Being preoccupied with so-called religions or their founders is a Western thing and something for fundamentalist populists who want to mirror that flawed framework.

Also Lord Krishna did not reform anything Hindu, He also reformed Tantra and just like Lord Shiva He also was later accepted as a deity by more Vedic thinking worldviews inside India.

So even to speak of 'the religions of India' is quite useless, religion is a category that serves Christianity and Islam rather well, but not most of the worldviews of India.
Tantric worldviews and their cults such as Buddhist ones confuse folks who think in 'religions' because they don't fit the religious mold.
It becomes especially confusing because in India and beyond originally purely Tantric paths became hybridised with more Vedic practices. E.g. Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna were eventually also accepted into the pantheon of Vedism and even Lord Buddha was.

A similar thing happened when the originally purely Tantric teachings of Jesus became hybridised with Hellenic types of worship and Roman ways of thinking creating Christianity. Without this hybridizing there would not have been the Christian religion.

So, this idea of the Bahai that there were successive founders of religions who were manifestations of God is a religious idea that does not reflect the historical reality. It is a Vedic type of fantasy, a mythical idea.
But Bahais are to be praised for stressing the unity between all spiritual paths.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: And as you probably know, Abdu'l-Baha explained the difference between the Prophets.
The Three Kinds of Prophets

firedragon said: Yep. He contradicted your God's word. Vis a Vis, the Quran.

The messenger acknowledges in what was sent down to him from his Lord and those who have acknowledged. All acknowledged God, His angels, His books, and His messengers, "We do not make a distinction between any of His messengers;" and they said, "We hear and obey, forgive us O Lord, and to you is our destiny." - Qur'an 2:285

No, Abdu'l-Baha did not contradict the Qur'an. He said that there are three kinds of Prophets, but two of those kinds of Prophets are not Messengers of God, they are followers and promulgators or Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. By contrast, a Messenger of God is a Prophet who brings a message from God and by His advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, and souls are quickened to a new life.

Baha'u'llah said exactly the same thing as you quoted from the Qur'an: "We do not make a distinction between any of His messengers;" Baha'u'llah called them Manifestations of God, but He made it clear that He was referring to Messengers of God when He concluding by saying that their Cause was "the Cause of His Messengers.”

“Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

Referring to Manifestations of God, Baha'u'llah also referred to them as The Bearers of the Trust of God and the Exponents of a new Cause and the Revealers of a new Message. All these titles refer to the Messengers of God.

“The Bearers of the Trust of God are made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause and the Revealers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the celestial Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they, therefore, are regarded as one soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 50

 

[firedragon]

No, Abdu'l-Baha did not contradict the Qur'an. He said that there are three kinds of Prophets, but two of those kinds of Prophets are not Messengers of God, they are followers and promulgators or Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. By contrast, a Messenger of God is a Prophet who brings a message from God and by His advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, and souls are quickened to a new life.

Baha'u'llah said exactly the same thing as you quoted from the Qur'an: "We do not make a distinction between any of His messengers;" Baha'u'llah called them Manifestations of God, but He made it clear that He was referring to Messengers of God when He concluding by saying that their Cause was "the Cause of His Messengers.”

“Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

Referring to Manifestations of God, Baha'u'llah also referred to them as The Bearers of the Trust of God and the Exponents of a new Cause and the Revealers of a new Message. All these titles refer to the Messengers of God.

“The Bearers of the Trust of God are made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause and the Revealers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the celestial Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they, therefore, are regarded as one soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 50

Can you clarify to me how you differentiate between prophets and messengers? Who is a Rasool and who is a Nabi?

 

[firedragon]

Just how general is the term "Hinduism"? Is it even more general than calling someone "Christian" when they are Baptist? Would some of the religions in India rather be called something more specific?

Then there are those "Hindus" here that don't fit the mold of what Baha'is have called "Hinduism". To fit their "progression", their should be an "original" Hinduism that believed in one God and believed that Krishna started it and was a "manifestation" of God and not an "incarnation" of God. Also, that they didn't teach reincarnation. Oh, and having Scriptures of that religion would be helpful.

So now from the Tantric pov... What are some of the issues with what the Baha'i Faith teaches? I'll take a quick look online and read up on some of the basics. Thanks.

Let me jump into this if you dont mind.

A Hindu is a geographical term to all in the region. Thats why even Buddhism is considered a Hindu way. Its much, much, much more general than calling someone "christian" when they are baptist. Though predominantly all of the Hindu religions or philosophies seems to ultimately go to the root of monism, or pantheism, there could be a religious group worshiping a tree, like Ayyanayaka which would also be classified as a Hindu religion though it may not have any relationship to the average Hindu religion.

The Bahai knowledge of Hinduism comes from some people who are within the Bahai fold, accepted and adopted into the Bahai fold, and allowed to publish within the Bahai fold. Thus, their way of presenting Hinduism is always "how Hinduism and Bahaism coincide". Thats why very rarely you will see Bahai's speaking of Hinduism as Hindu's or other scholars of Hinduism understand Hinduism. They predominantly speak about Hinduism from the point of view of an article or a book found in their website. Thats the source of their knowledge. Sorry to say this, but this is a fact.

You touched on incarnation and manifestation. An incarnation is when a God like Zeus comes down to earth in a human form to do something. Mostly these mythical Gods had babies with human women. But the point is, this is "incarnation". Coming down to earth as a man but it is God himself. Manifestation is like a Prathibimba or reflection. No wait, maybe reflection is not the correct word. Lets say there is a candle and with some lenses you create a kind of an image that falls onto a piece of paper. That is a manifestation. The original candle is still in its place as it always will be. And the image that's projected is a manifestation of the candle.

The Bahai's believe the messengers are manifestations of God. Abdul Baha was predominantly the person who made most of the analysis and projections that gave more importance to Bahaullah with the promise of the universal theology. And that is what we are trying to unpack here.

 

[Vinayaka]

How they going to prove that Their proof is Baha'u'llah, because he said so and they believe him.

But don't forget he's infallible. The others aren't. Being infallible means you can't be wrong.

 

[firedragon]

But don't forget he's infallible. The others aren't. Being infallible means you can't be wrong.

True. If one is infallible, you just defined it.

But have you explored the "if"?

 

[Vinayaka]

True. If one is infallible, you just defined it.

But have you explored the "if"?

Yup. Infallibility