Thanks but you didn’t have to do that. I never expected them to agree with my views but was interested in how Buddhists felt about that quote in their own texts.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buddhists, is this true?
- Thread starter Vinayaka
- Start date
Thanks but you didn’t have to do that. I never expected them to agree with my views but was interested in how Buddhists felt about that quote in their own texts.
So are you admitting that your statement was just plain false? That Buddhists do not think Baha'u'llah is the next Buddha. That was my point all along. Baha'is have this rude habit of stating what other religions believe, when in fact, they don't. Before stating what Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, or Hindus believe, wouldn't it be better to do some basic research first? At least have the decency to dialogue with them before telling what they believe?
I believe the reason for this is because as memory servers me from a number of years ago when I did some research on this so-called "prophecy" from the Buddha, is that it is considered a 3rd Century CE apocryphal addition in the Pali texts. It's like the pseudo-Pauline texts, something written after the person lived, made to be that person saying them, but the tell-tale signs are there in the literature that it is unlikely to be authentic.
A quick Wiki glance has this in the first paragraph:
Most of the Buddha's sermons are presented as having been presented in answer to a question, or in some other appropriate context, but this sutta has a beginning and ending in which the Buddha is talking to monks about something totally different. This leads scholar Richard Gombrich to conclude that either the whole sutta is apocryphal or that it has at least been tampered with.
There was some other material from a monk that I had I can't locate right now that went into this, and how it goes against what the Buddha taught. The Baha'i', with their obsession with prophets and revelation, of course did not understand Buddhism, and so they want to make Buddha a prophet too in their own creation myths of a line of prophets leading conveniently to theirs, which goes against basic Buddhist teachings. I wish I could find it, because it was rather good. If I find it, I'll post it. Bugs me I can't find that right now.
I included the Buddhist prophecy from their texts regarding Buddha telling Ananda to turn to the future Buddha to teach the Buddhist when He had departed. Then I added that I believed that to be Baha’u’llah.
If I wasn’t clear I sincerely apologise. Buddhists do believe that a future Buddha was prophesied in their texts. But they of course do not believe it is Baha’u’llah.
By this logic ALL religions have this 'rude habit' of telling what other religions should believe, particularly as they do.
Baha’u’llah being a Buddha is only my view not what professed Buddhists believe. I thought I stated that it waa my view only. Apologies if it was seen the way you have stated. It was not intended that way.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
This sort of reminds me of the proverb: when the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch.
Glad we worked that out. It absolutely wasn't clear. Baha'ispeak isn't clear to outsiders, and unfortunately, for all sides, misunderstandings occur. That's what I call you guys on such statements. Somebody has to do the dirty work. There are just too many ex-Bahai testimonies saying, "if I would have known before I signed up what I know now, I would never have joined."
So if some young naive unsuspecting fellow comes along and is told that Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims all predicted this guy, and they don't do their homework, they sign up, donate money and time, and in a few years, after further knowledge comes, they go, "uh oh, what have i done?" It does everyone a disservice. That's a common reason to leave too. In my view, better to be really upfront on the first place. I know I am if anyone comes to look at my particular brand of Hinduism.
Take the analogy of marriage. Some person comes along and doesn't tell you about their debt, you get married, and than find out you're now also responsible for his/her debt. it's a waste of time.
It was really clear what you said ... it's just falling into Baha'ispeak, and not proofreading for that specifically before you post. Apology accepted.
No they don't, because many religions don't say much at all about other religions. Baha'is do, as 'progressive revelation' from other religions is a cornerstone of Baha'i belief.
But you're right for the proselytizing, "I'm right, you're wrong' variety of religion, which actually isn't that many. I think they're just the ones that get discussed most. Many Christian groups, some Baha'i individuals, most dharmic faiths don't say much at all, and much prefer to leave it as is without any comments or interference. That part is obvious if you ask them about some other religion than their own. I knew nothing at all about your faith, and only got started in discussions with Baha'i folks here because of some false claim they made about Hinduism. If it wouldn't have been for that starting point, I seriously doubt if I'd have ever gotten into any discussion with Baha'i here. But it's been fruitful all the same.
By believing and following the guidance of Buddha I have been given excellent spiritual vision. His teachings can but lead one to be spiritually enlightened.
This sounds like an all to familiar story line as the history of the Bible. Things appear 'tampered with.' This may be true, but again in both cases it represents speculation of the unknown. In this problem the scripture of the Bible has the weakest provenance of any of the scriptures of the religions.
There is no obsession with Baha'is, despite your over the top bias and sarcasm. The belief reflects a universal view of evolving progressive revelation in the relationship between God and humanity. The alternative is clear that the religions and belief systems of the world represent human efforts to justify their existence in a natural cultural context of the time and place they lived, and therefore the atheist/agnostic/humanist view is the best game in town.There was some other material from a monk that I had I can't locate right now that went into this, and how it goes against what the Buddha taught. The Baha'i', with their obsession with prophets and revelation, of course did not understand Buddhism, and so they want to make Buddha a prophet too in their own creation myths of a line of prophets leading conveniently to theirs, which goes against basic Buddhist teachings. I wish I could find it, because it was rather good. If I find it, I'll post it. Bugs me I can't find that right now.
False!!!! Yes they do definitely make statements about other religions and indeed justify their own religious and cultural context,
The highlighted is a very naive false statement of how different religions and belief systems relate. It is far to a vague subjective anecdotal statement that does not reflect the reality of how different belief systems relate to themselves and other beliefs. It neglects the fact that religions also define their beliefs as negation of other choices from a highly ancient cultural perspective.
Added note: Pretty much all variations of Christianity believe there is Salvation ONLY through some sort of variation of Jesus Christ is the only savior, and you must believe to be saved
I have also, but could never call myself Buddhist, because Buddha never pointed to himself. . ., he pointed.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
I do not want to be spiritually enlightened: I just want to be able to survive in this world and withstand my enemies through infallible dharmic actions to thwart them from being able to live a life of dignity. That dignity means I follow no one, not Buddha, not Baha'ullah, not Mohammed, not Jesus, not the Queen of the UK, not the Pope. I must be self sufficient in everything by adopting the correct choices. Of course I know that these choices are outlined for me by God who lives within me to guide me in my actions through the right thoughts moment by moment.
In the textbook on Saivism that I use, and newcomers to my faith are given, there are 67 chapters. Yes, one of those chapters is entitled, "How do we view other religions?" But 66 chapters are on Saivism.
I haven't been to a Christian service since I was 18, but as i remember, the service was entirely about Christ, some quotes on the Bible, and all that. I don't think other religions are mentioned much at all.
Personally, i think you're projecting the Baha'i thinking out onto others. It's a false methodology. Course I may be doing the same thing. Maybe other people do indeed think a lot more than I do about other faiths. The folks on this forum do for sure, as it's part of interfaith. But in real life, I doubt it. A lot of Americans wouldn't know the difference between a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist.
In all the years I've been attending Catholic mass, I can vouch that no homily has ever referred to any other religions save Judaism, and the latter was not actually a reference to the Rabbinic faith we know today, but rather a reflection of the fact that Christianity started out as a sect of Second Temple Judaism for the first decades, and so it is near impossible to discuss Jesus without reference to the Jewish cultural milieu in which he operated.
That, and the fact that the Old Testament or Tanakh is part of the Bible, of course. But the Talmud isn't and the Oral Torah is very important to Jews.
Last edited:
Everyone and their cousins claim to be Amithaba.
One chapter is enough.
Ancient religions, including yours, do believe in the negation of other belief systems by either negation or aggressive rejection of alternatives. Your view does appear to be an aggressive rejection of the Baha'i Faith beliefs because they differ from yours. The Baha'i Faith does definitely have a more empathetic view of differences without 'accusations of rudeness,' or other derogatory descriptions.
Your view is very limited and the anecdotal perspective of a youngster. I am sure you were taught that Christians are saved through some version of belief in Jesus Christ and others were not. Though not always openly aggressively rejected. The view is 'others' DO NOT believe in the One True God.
Personally I see you are projecting your particular Buddhist thinking on others. It is more a fasllible human methodology, and others are considered false from the perspective of one religion or another.
Your view of 'A lot of Americans' is a very naive generalization. Most Americans definitely believe they know the difference between religions from their own perspective. The problem is like yours and mine it is from their perspective. The difference between your view projected here and mine is I do not make 'rude accusations' because of differences.
I do believe that the Baha'i Faith allows more of a range of human perspectives of religious beliefs without accusations of false beliefs in the relationship between religions. In part because the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the fallible human perspective of the diversity human beliefs.
Last edited:
Apparently you are devoted follower of the 'self,' your own dharmic actions, which you absolutely believe in.