Bahaism, Buddhism and Islam, conflict or one?

[CG Didymus]

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.

That was great. Thanks. As I've said... I like the basic teachings of the Baha'i Faith. We need unity and peace between all people. But going beyond the basics... What is the Baha'i Faith all about? Is their prophet speaking the infallible Word of God? I can't say that. And if he's not speaking the infallible, inerrant Word of God, what is he saying and for what purpose? I didn't used to mistrust religions and their leaders, but now I do.

Invisible, unknowable Gods? The only way to know God in this day is through Baha'u'llah? They use prophecies from all the different Scriptures, then some of them say you can't go by the prophecies. They say all the "revealed" religions are true, then some of them say that the Scriptures we do have were written by men, so they aren't necessarily accurate. So the only "true" thing left is them. And they only "proof" is because their prophet said so. But, as with the case of their "progressive revelation" thing, I don't see it. I agree with you. There were no successive founders. Founders that were these "special" creations they call "manifestations".

I don't think a Baha'i has answered yet about my question about in some forms of Buddhism that any can become enlightened. But if Buddha was a manifestation, then ordinary people could not attain what he attained. Do you have any thoughts or comments on this? Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Yes, that is what I was told... That a manifestation is a "perfect" reflection of God. And please jump in whenever you like. Especially when it's your thread.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Yes, I went through that with Christians too. Some of them say that the Bible is the "infallible" Word of God... to be taken literally. Then the Baha'is tell me that the Bible can't be taken literally and must be taken symbolically. But then? Who was the supposed manifestation that wrote the Bible and the NT? Even Baha'is say it was probably people... scribes and religious leaders in Judaism. Then, with the NT, followers of Jesus. As some Baha'is point out, were probably not even eyewitnesses to the events. So fine... I can agree with that. Only problem I don't go around telling people that the Bible and the NT is the Word of God. Baha'is kind of do.

I don't know what Scriptures you believe in and follow, but I'd bet that the Baha'is would do the same with them. Or, even worse if it wasn't written by an authorized, approved manifestation of God. And what are the chances of that? Like the Sikhs, Baha'is don't talk much about them. They are like of no importance. All because their founder isn't on the list of manifestations. But, infallibility sure makes things easy. "Well, our guy can't be wrong, so that means that when somebody or some religion contradicts him, they must be wrong."

The good thing about Baha'is is that most of them aren't to harsh about telling people they and their religion are full of it. No, wait... that's not exactly right. The religion is okay... it's the misguided leaders in the religion that screwed it up and came up with false doctrines and beliefs for the people to follow. Hmmm? But those wrong doctrines and beliefs are the religion? Okay, at least the manifestation can be trusted as being true. Hmmm? Except what is said about him in the Scriptures was written by fallible men that more than likely embellished the story. Okay, can't trust what they believe about the manifestation. Best to just listen to what Baha'is say is true about the religion and the manifestation, because that is... absolutely... without a doubt true, because the infallible Baha'u'llah said so. Hmmm? And what did he say about Hinduism and Buddhism?

 

[Marcion]

I don't think a Baha'i has answered yet about my question about in some forms of Buddhism that any can become enlightened. But if Buddha was a manifestation, then ordinary people could not attain what he attained. Do you have any thoughts or comments on this? Thanks.

You are right, Gautama Buddha was just special in that he was more or less at the end of his karmic load and that he had somehow developed the great talent and perseverance of being able to design a very beneficial spiritual path and struggle hard to reach his own liberation and complete his mission.
So he was a Maharishi, a great wise soul and deserves to be called Lord Buddha.

He was no more 'sent by God' than any heroe who does a great or very great thing in their life and is ultimately an inevitable product of the Cosmic Consciousness just like we all are.
The same goes for Jesus or perhaps for Bahaullah himself.

But I struggle with how Sarkar's idea of (born) fully realised Mahakaula's who periodically changed the course of humanity by restoring Dharma in society is very different from Bahaullah's religious frame.
Why would Sarkar know more than Bahaullah?
Does God mysteriously respond to the collective desire of massive numbers of people by sending such a fully enlightend being to Earth?

Why am I very much more impressed by the lives and deep teachings of Shiva, Krishna and Ananadamurti than by those of Jesus?

Is it actually wise or kind to compare such preceptors in this way, knowing that their followers are also present and may feel offended by my biased viewpoint?

Tantra is based on experimentation with sadhana where most religion is mostly theoretical.
But for the knowledge of such types of frames you have to depend on the authority of great Teachers who are spiritually much more than we still are.
And that is no different from what the Bahai's are doing in their own way, so I cannot and will not criticize them for believing the words of their preceptor.

 

[firedragon]

Yup. Infallibility

I didnt mean the meaning of infallibility. I meant if he was indeed infallible.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that is what I was told... That a manifestation is a "perfect" reflection of God. And please jump in whenever you like. Especially when it's your thread.

Its not really a reflection in my understanding. Thats why I used the Sanskrit word Prathibimba and tried to explain it. But I presume I was not successful.

 

[firedragon]

That was great. Thanks. As I've said... I like the basic teachings of the Baha'i Faith. We need unity and peace between all people. But going beyond the basics... What is the Baha'i Faith all about? Is their prophet speaking the infallible Word of God? I can't say that. And if he's not speaking the infallible, inerrant Word of God, what is he saying and for what purpose? I didn't used to mistrust religions and their leaders, but now I do.

Invisible, unknowable Gods? The only way to know God in this day is through Baha'u'llah? They use prophecies from all the different Scriptures, then some of them say you can't go by the prophecies. They say all the "revealed" religions are true, then some of them say that the Scriptures we do have were written by men, so they aren't necessarily accurate. So the only "true" thing left is them. And they only "proof" is because their prophet said so. But, as with the case of their "progressive revelation" thing, I don't see it. I agree with you. There were no successive founders. Founders that were these "special" creations they call "manifestations".

I don't think a Baha'i has answered yet about my question about in some forms of Buddhism that any can become enlightened. But if Buddha was a manifestation, then ordinary people could not attain what he attained. Do you have any thoughts or comments on this? Thanks.

Good question.

 

[firedragon]

You are right, Gautama Buddha was just special in that he was more or less at the end of his karmic load and that he had somehow developed the great talent and perseverance of being able to design a very beneficial spiritual path and struggle hard to reach his own liberation and complete his mission.
So he was a Maharishi, a great wise soul and deserves to be called Lord Buddha.

He was no more 'sent by God' than any heroe who does a great or very great thing in their life and is ultimately an inevitable product of the Cosmic Consciousness just like we all are.
The same goes for Jesus or perhaps for Bahaullah himself.

But I struggle with how Sarkar's idea of (born) fully realised Mahakaula's who periodically changed the course of humanity by restoring Dharma in society is very different from Bahaullah's religious frame.
Why would Sarkar know more than Bahaullah?
Does God mysteriously respond to the collective desire of massive numbers of people by sending such a fully enlightend being to Earth?

Why am I very much more impressed by the lives and deep teachings of Shiva, Krishna and Ananadamurti than by those of Jesus?

Is it actually wise or kind to compare such preceptors in this way, knowing that their followers are also present and may feel offended by my biased viewpoint?

Tantra is based on experimentation with sadhana where most religion is mostly theoretical.
But for the knowledge of such types of frames you have to depend on the authority of great Teachers who are spiritually much more than we still are.
And that is no different from what the Bahai's are doing in their own way, so I cannot and will not criticize them for believing the words of their preceptor.

You just criticised the Bahai faith without even knowing it though you say you would not. You defied what the Bahai's claim about the Buddha.

 

[CG Didymus]

Its not really a reflection in my understanding. Thats why I used the Sanskrit word Prathibimba and tried to explain it. But I presume I was not successful.

I think Baha'is say it more like the manifestation is a reflection. They use the analogy of seeing the image of the Sun in a mirror. So they make the manifestation a perfectly polished mirror that can reflect God.

 

[firedragon]

I think Baha'is say it more like the manifestation is a reflection. They use the analogy of seeing the image of the Sun in a mirror. So they make the manifestation a perfectly polished mirror that can reflect God.

I wonder which scripture they are using for this analogy. Is that just arbitrary or was there some basis for this explanation of what a manifestation is?

 

[Vinayaka]

I didnt mean the meaning of infallibility. I meant if he was indeed infallible.

Sorry I misunderstood. Personally, I've never believed in infallibility, period. I don't believe in manifestations, avatars, prophets, or predicting the future. I think it's some kind of wishful thinking psychological disorder to believe somebody can't get anything wrong.

 

[Marcion]

You just criticised the Bahai faith without even knowing it though you say you would not. You defied what the Bahai's claim about the Buddha.

Well, you cannot simoultaneously support two types of frames that have little or no overlap.
So I guess I'm somewhat of a hypocrite yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I did not know what those terms meant until I read the post below posted by a Niblo on another thread.
I agree with how Niblo differentiated a Nabī from a Rasūl.

A Nabī is a man sent by Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) to provide guidance, or give warning, to those who are already under the Law; whereas a Rasūl (‘Messenger’) is charged with delivering the Law in the first place – in the form of scripture (he is also required to provide guidance and give warning, of course). All Rasūl are considered to be Nabī; but not all Nabī were Rasūl.

Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was a Rasūl.
#11 Niblo, Today at 4:30 AM

What Niblo said is similar to what Abdu'l-Baha said:

Question.—How many kinds of Prophets are there?

Answer.—Universally, the Prophets are of two kinds. One are the independent Prophets Who are followed; the other kind are not independent and are themselves followers.

The independent Prophets are the lawgivers and the founders of a new cycle. Through Their appearance the world puts on a new garment, the foundations of religion are established, and a new book is revealed. Without an intermediary They receive bounty from the Reality of the Divinity, and Their illumination is an essential illumination. They are like the sun which is luminous in itself: the light is its essential necessity; it does not receive light from any other star. These Dawning-places of the morn of Unity are the sources of bounty and the mirrors of the Essence of Reality.

The other Prophets are followers and promoters, for they are branches and not independent; they receive the bounty of the independent Prophets, and they profit by the light of the Guidance of the universal Prophets. They are like the moon, which is not luminous and radiant in itself, but receives its light from the sun.

The Manifestations of universal Prophethood Who appeared independently are, for example, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. But the others who are followers and promoters are like Solomon, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. For the independent Prophets are founders; They establish a new religion and make new creatures of men; They change the general morals, promote new customs and rules, renew the cycle and the Law. Their appearance is like the season of spring, which arrays all earthly beings in a new garment, and gives them a new life.

With regard to the second sort of Prophets who are followers, these also promote the Law of God, make known the Religion of God, and proclaim His word. Of themselves they have no power and might, except what they receive from the independent Prophets.

43: THE TWO CLASSES OF PROPHETS, Some Answered Questions, pp. 164-165

 

[CG Didymus]

I wonder which scripture they are using for this analogy. Is that just arbitrary or was there some basis for this explanation of what a manifestation is?

I found this...

A very common analogy to explain the unique station of the Manifestation of God is as a mirror. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gave talks throughout his tour of Europe and America, in which he elaborated this analogy to many audiences. This is one example:

"Is the Divine Manifestation, God? Yes, and yet not in Essence. A Divine Manifestation is as a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun. The light is the same and yet the mirror is not the Sun. All the Manifestations of God bring the same Light; they only differ in degree, not in reality. The Truth is one. The light is the same though the lamps may be different; we must look at the Light not at the Lamp. If we accept the Light in one, we must accept the Light in all; all agree, because all are the same."[10]
"These sanctified Mirrors...are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory."[14]​

 

[firedragon]

Sorry I misunderstood. Personally, I've never believed in infallibility, period. I don't believe in manifestations, avatars, prophets, or predicting the future. I think it's some kind of wishful thinking psychological disorder to believe somebody can't get anything wrong.

Okay I understand your position.

 

[firedragon]

I found this...

A very common analogy to explain the unique station of the Manifestation of God is as a mirror. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gave talks throughout his tour of Europe and America, in which he elaborated this analogy to many audiences. This is one example:

"Is the Divine Manifestation, God? Yes, and yet not in Essence. A Divine Manifestation is as a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun. The light is the same and yet the mirror is not the Sun. All the Manifestations of God bring the same Light; they only differ in degree, not in reality. The Truth is one. The light is the same though the lamps may be different; we must look at the Light not at the Lamp. If we accept the Light in one, we must accept the Light in all; all agree, because all are the same."[10]
"These sanctified Mirrors...are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory."[14]​

That is I think a Bahai type of explanation. I suppose it is an easier explanation where people will understand.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

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.

As you appreciate Jesus and Muhammad were bearers of a Divine Revelations that have profoundly altered the course of human history, shaped civilisation and continue to exert influence. Both characters exemplified the Teachings within the Revelation they made known (manifested). Alexandra the Great didn’t do any of that. Of course they are all men. However they manifested God’s attributes and Teachings to humanity to a degree that is unattainable by Alexandra the Great.

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 talk by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in Akka is not given the same status as the Baha’i writings. I’m not aware its an authenticated talk, will have the same status as pilgrim notes so as such is not authoritative. However I have no problem with it. ‘Abdu’l-Baha uses metaphor to communicate. Maybe you take it too literally so what you see, I don’t.

Baha’is are like everyone else. We learn from our experiences in life, through study and thoughtful reflection. I grew up Christian and became a Baha’i in my twenties. I’ve never been a Muslim, never claimed to be a Muslim, and never been interested in becoming a Muslim. However I enjoy associating with peoples of all religions along with reading and studying the Quran. That is how I learn about Islam. Of course, the Baha’i writings have much to say about Islam so that’s of interest too. That doesn’t mean I blindly accept what Baha’i websites have to say.

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

If that is literally true, why make a distinction between Nabi and Rasool? See the problem?

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.

I value intellectual honesty and integrity. Peace and tolerance are fundamentally important. Justice and fairness are essential. That is all. If you have an objection to the Baha’i Faith, produce the specific writings that trouble you. If the term Manifestation of God bothers you, ensure you understand what is meant by that term. If you feel the Baha’i writings contradict the Quran, produce the verses that demonstrate the contradiction and a reasoned commentary on what that verse means. I understand the term Manifestation of God is nowhere in the Quran. That alone is insufficient to discredit the validity of the term used in the Baha’i writings. I hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

As you appreciate Jesus and Muhammad were bearers of a Divine Revelations that have profoundly altered the course of human history, shaped civilisation and continue to exert influence. Both characters exemplified the Teachings within the Revelation they made known (manifested). Alexandra the Great didn’t do any of that. Of course they are all men. However they manifested God’s attributes and Teachings to humanity to a degree that is unattainable by Alexandra the Great.

Thats why, knowing you would not understand the point, I made that disclaimer "I dont claim they are all the same".

Bottomline is, there are all mere human beings. Nothing divine.

If that is literally true, why make a distinction between Nabi and Rasool? See the problem?

So what you are saying is that the Quran is wrong? clarify.

I value intellectual honesty and integrity.

Thats great. But I would like to point out that your post was a Tu Quoque fallacy.

Peace.

 

[Marcion]

As you appreciate Jesus and Muhammad were bearers of a Divine Revelations that have profoundly altered the course of human history, shaped civilisation and continue to exert influence..

I don't see them as 'bearers of Divine Revelations' at all because that is a very religious (Vedic) way of looking at their personalities.
Declaring certain scriptures or utterances as 'Divine Revelations' is a trick to try and impress people into slavishly accepting those ideas instead of trying to understand and judge them in a rational and more useful way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

“The Religions of all nations are derived from each nation’s different reception of the Poetic Genius, which is everywhere called the Spirit of Prophecy...

...as all men are alike, though infinitely various, so all Religions: and as all similars have one source, the True Man is the source, he being the Poetic Genius.”

- William Blake