How are these Great Beings explained?

[loverofhumanity]

There is nothing wrong with trying, and all kinds of governments have been trying new ways for a long time. It's not just Bahai. With each new election in every democratic country, something new is tried. Most especially after any major war, there is more dialogue. Yes sometimes the change seems way too slow.

We'll get it right one day. If not now for sure after a nuclear war!

 

[loverofhumanity]

But half the religions dont want a new way. They feel the old will help with the new. Other religions rather for the new and disregard the old. Both are fine.

Can you find world peace when each and all religion defines it differently?

Yes. People are in their comfort zone now so unless they see a need for peace they won't be interested in it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes. People are in their comfort zone now so unless they see a need for peace they won't be interested in it.

In many cases that comfort zone is a totally valid place to be. Unless your country is on the border of some warmongering place, it's really safe. Places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, lots of India, lots of China, are all really safe. Basically the planet is dotted with trouble spots

But all that is external stuff. On the inside, man has to find his own peace. So even in a war zone, a man can be at peace with himself and family, and the opposite is also true. Sitting in an idyllic setting, a person can still get all agitated and angry.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In many cases that comfort zone is a totally valid place to be. Unless your country is on the border of some warmongering place, it's really safe. Places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, lots of India, lots of China, are all really safe. Basically the planet is dotted with trouble spots

But all that is external stuff. On the inside, man has to find his own peace. So even in a war zone, a man can be at peace with himself and family, and the opposite is also true. Sitting in an idyllic setting, a person can still get all agitated and angry.

Very true. If we don't have inner peace then treaties and pacts don't mean much at all.

I fully agree that it's the inner spiritual,peace that's important. But only each individual can find it by making his own effort. It's not something that can be bought over the counter.

 

[Vinayaka]

Very true. If we don't have inner peace then treaties and pacts don't mean much at all.

I fully agree that it's the inner spiritual,peace that's important. But only each individual can find it by making his own effort. It's not something that can be bought over the counter.

Average Joe doesn't even realise he/she can find peace within.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Baha'u'llah as a youth

"...by the time He was fourteen, he became known for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to him. In large gatherings he would explain intricate religious questions..."

Clearly, according to Baha'i interpretations at least, Baha'u'llah had acquired detailed knowledge of religion by the age of 14. He was also able to comment on details of the Torah and the Christian scriptures as well as the Qur'an in his writings. He also had a reasonable knowledge of Hinduism as is evident from his dialogue with Manakji Limji Hataria which are recounted by Baha'u'llah in a letter to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl.

See here for more details on that:

Baha'u'llah on Hinduism and Zoroastrianism: The Tablet to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Concerning the Questions of Manakji Limji Hataria

Here are a few relevant excerpts:

"It has not been widely recognized, however, that Baha'u'llah himself had some knowledge of Hinduism...

Not only was Baha'u'llah familiar with Hinduism, but he clearly expected that his nineteenth-century, literate, Persian-speaking audience would be, as well...

A substantial literature on Hinduism existed in Arabic and Persian...

...many Hindus also wrote in or translated into Persian, very large numbers of such manuscripts circulated among the literate classes, and many of these books demonstrably reached Iran...

Persian descriptions of Hinduism, though varying in quality, were also quite numerous...

Baha'u'llah's wording makes it clear that he was familiar with the Yoga Vasistha...

Major points of interest are Baha'u'llah's attitudes to Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. He was clearly
well-versed in the former..."

Will that do for now?

EDIT: I does seem that Baha'u'llah made very little, if any, commentary on Buddha or Buddhism. It was Abdu'l Baha who elevated Buddha to the rank of Manifestation. But it does seem pretty clear that both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha were very well-read in religious matters - and especially (and unsurprisingly) those that were important in 19th century Persia - including Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. So the Baha'i claim (repeated yet again) that their knowledge of religion was not gained from religious education, certainly seems to me to be rather questionable.

Thank you,

These quotes that you have referred to, clearly claims that Bahaullah had knowledge of the details of Religions of the Past, and specially the ones that were important for the people of His time. However these quotes does not say, 'where', 'when', and 'how' He learned them.
What I am saying, is let's find out if there are any Historical evidence that Bahaullah learned them through studying from others, or having books, or teachers. Actually Bahais did not make up the believe that, Bahaullah had a divinely inspired knowledge, but Bahaullah made this claim, as here are some of His own Writings in His Tablets:


"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
This is a Tablet wherein the Pen of the Unseen hath inscribed the knowledge of all that hath been and shall be—a knowledge that none other but My wondrous Tongue can interpret. Indeed My heart as it is in itself hath been purged by God from the concepts of the learned and is sanctified from the utterances of the wise. In truth naught doth it mirror forth but the revelations of God. Unto this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur in this perspicuous Book."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 137-152


"Even the Persian ‘ulamá who were at Karbilá and Najaf chose a wise man whom they sent on a mission to Him; his name was Mullá Hasan ‘Amú. He came into the Holy Presence, and proposed a number of questions on behalf of the ‘ulamá, to which Bahá’u’lláh replied. Then Hasan ‘Amú said, “The ‘ulamá recognize without hesitation and confess the knowledge and virtue of Bahá’u’lláh, and they are unanimously convinced that in all learning he has no peer or equal; and it is also evident that he has never studied or acquired this learning; but still the ‘ulamá say, ‘We are not contented with this; we do not acknowledge the reality of his mission by virtue of his wisdom and righteousness. Therefore, we ask him to show us a miracle in order to satisfy and tranquilize our hearts.’”

Bahá’u’lláh – in the words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

And also, Bahaullah wrote to the King:

"O King!....The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 57-60

So, according to Bahaullah, His knowledge is not through human learnings, but it has come to Him, by the Will of God.
So, again, I am not trying to defend Bahaullah. But I want to know if from History, are there any evidence to disprove this, or to approve it.
As Bahaullah Himself asked the King "Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely."... so, is it possible to find out if what Bahaullah claimes is true or false? Is it possible to find out 'where', 'when', and 'how' he obtained the detailed knowledge of Religions, and history. What are your thoughts?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. People are in their comfort zone now so unless they see a need for peace they won't be interested in it.

What is the definition of peace that all religions share in order to arrive to peace?

(I had this same discussion with loverofhumanity. Wondering if its a bahai thing or does it depend)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. People are in their comfort zone now so unless they see a need for peace they won't be interested in it.

People do see the need for peace. They do now in their respective religions. Since they see a need for it is it better with one dominate peaceful religion (peaceful dominate religions dont force. Their peaceful) or fifty thousand individual peaceful religions?

If dominate, all religions conform to one foundation.

If individual, each religion has their own foundation.

Its not a trick question. Just taking out specific religions becauae people have so much bias that I can ask the same question without thinking wars and stuff.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It depends on what your definition of dominant religion is. If by this, you mean a Religion which forces its beliefs on others, or pressures others to also believe, in what they believed, or discriminates against those who have a different religious believe, then, in my opinion it won't be able to establish peace, and most likely, there would appear conflicts and divisions between the followers of its own.
The Bahai Faith cannot be like that, as can be seen from its scriptures, it forbids Bahais from forcing their belief on others or even defend their own religion by use of weapons. Also, the Bahais, believe Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna...were all the Truth, and Islam, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrism,...all had the same and one divine origin, so they do not change their mind, about truth of the older Manifestations. Off course, the Bahai Scriptures provides a new interpretations of some of the sayings of the Previous Manifestations, because it says, some of Their sayings were not to be taken literally, and must be interpreted Symbolically or Mystically. But what is wrong with this, or what harm is in this?

Religion which forces its beliefs

Dominate doesnt mean force. Im trying to see this positive and peacefully. Thats were it starts. Changing our perspective of he world. If we see it as wars, our thoughts will lead us to a dominate minset. If our thoughts are non dominate, it would lead to an more open mindset.

I know one of you said "as long as there is peace."

Once can have peace without claiming any faith. But since faith defines a person, how would you come to peace among foundations and definitions of peace that contradict each other?

Is it better to have one dominate religion with one foundation that all other faiths conform to. Or is it better to have more than one faith and find peace with agreement and mutual respect of each others faith and traditions, language, and culture (TLC)?

 

[sayak83]

Average Joe doesn't even realise he/she can find peace within.

Of course she can. She just has to watch Kung Fu Panda.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is the definition of peace that all religions share in order to arrive to peace?

(I had this same discussion with loverofhumanity. Wondering if its a bahai thing or does it depend)

Talking to myself. Anyway, edit... I asked this before. Cant remember the answer.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

... But since faith defines a person, how would you come to peace among foundations and definitions of peace that contradict each other?...

It depends if we are talking about 'inner' peace of us, or we are talking about a peaceful world.

I believe in both case Bahaullah provided the answer.
If we are talking about finding inner peace in everyday life, in my understanding, we need a set of teachings and new way of life that can be integrated into the Daily life of our Age, an Age which is different from previous Ages, in terms of Technology, Jobs, homes, human relationship,..etc, so, that, by practising these set of teachings, we can improve our spiritual powers, which gives us an inner happiness, and peace.
If we are talking about, having a world peace, in my understanding, we need a new World order, which can create a more just and fair world.
Bahaullah has given teachings for both, the inner and outward peace. But these requires looking into details of His Tablets and Books, and how they can be practised. But the Worldwide Bahai community, seems to be successful at least with regards to keeping its own unity and peace, both within the Bahai community, as this Religion has not been divided, as well as, how the Bahais treat and communicate with those who are not Bahais, as the Bahais have been peaceful with other communities.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It depends if we are talking about 'inner' peace of us, or we are talking about a peaceful world.

I believe in both case Bahaullah provided the answer.
If we are talking about finding inner peace in everyday life, in my understanding, we need a set of teachings and new way of life that can be integrated into the Daily life of our Age, an Age which is different from previous Ages, in terms of Technology, Jobs, homes, human relationship,..etc, so, that, by practising these set of teachings, we can improve our spiritual powers, which gives us an inner happiness, and peace.
If we are talking about, having a world peace, in my understanding, we need a new World order, which can create a more just and fair world.
Bahaullah has given teachings for both, the inner and outward peace. But these requires looking into details of His Tablets and Books, and how they can be practised. But the Worldwide Bahai community, seems to be successful at least with regards to keeping its own unity and peace, both within the Bahai community, as this Religion has not been divided, as well as, how the Bahais treat and communicate with those who are not Bahais, as the Bahais have been peaceful with other communities.

Thank you for answering rhe first question. I dont see directly how this addresses the second question. I can guess but Ive been talking around in circles and wanted to know if you have a direct answer and insight to the answer without needing to refer to one particular religion since we are talking about all religions definition and inner peace defined differently rather than one religion world view.

 

[Vinayaka]

Lots of religions offer solutions to both inner peace and to world peace. Perhaps all religions have that as part of their goals.

There must be a great deal of frustration built up by those who feel there is only one prophet and one religion that can offer this solution.
"Why aren't these people listening to what I have to say. If they would only investigate more closely and they would find the truth." That type of thinking must be frustrating.

As John Lennon wisely said, "Let it be, Let it be."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Is it better to have one dominate religion with one foundation that all other faiths conform to. Or is it better to have more than one faith and find peace with agreement and mutual respect of each others faith and traditions, language, and culture (TLC)?

So, do I have to choose between only these two options?
I believe the betterment of the World is achieved through goodley deeds and improving on principles of ethics, and this is how peace and tranquility would be accomplished.
However I do believe also, to be able to have firm principle of ethics, one needs a firm belief, so, that in such a materialistic world which constantly promotes worldly things, one can remain firm and steadfast. The firm belief may only come, if one has investigated the Truth of a Religion, before accepting it. But regardless if the world ends up in having only One Religion, or remain with Multiple Religion, the mutual respect is certainly always required.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Im nit picking because all bahais here give vague answers.

So, do I have to choose between only these two options?

Yes.

The firm belief may only come, if one has investigated the Truth of a Religion, before accepting it. But regardle

Is there one truth of religion and foundation hat other religions coform to to find inner peace (Im only talking about inner peace) or can peace happen with fifthy thousand truths that are not interconnected?

 

[Vinayaka]

The bottom line should be that if an individual can restrain his/her emotions to the point of not raising his/her voice, not thinking violent thoughts, not closing his/her fist, not starting arguments with winning in mind, and much more, then it is irrelevant as to how that behaviour came about.

It's also incredibly challenging when bombarded by violent imagery, people who choose to argue, and an otherwise mass consciousness that isn't conducive to ahimsa.

In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, (circa 200BC) the very first Yama (restraint) is ahimsa. So the idea, conceptually, has been around a very long time.

Bahais condemn corporal punishment, and publish strategies for dealing with inner turmoil leading to the loss of emotion. So do many other groups. Still, each time, it boils down to an individual either having that attitude inherently, or having the will to make it part of his/her life.

 

[siti]

Is it possible to find out 'where', 'when', and 'how' he obtained the detailed knowledge of Religions, and history. What are your thoughts?

I think it is noteworthy, in attempting to answer that question, that Baha'u'llah seemed to receive divine knowledge only about religious texts that were known to have been translated into the Persian language and were available in Persia during his lifetime. His knowledge of Hinduism, for example, seems directly aligned with certain texts and not with others. But I suppose the best testimony about Baha'u'llah's familiarity with the texts comes from his own words:

Mention hath been made in certain books of a deluge which caused all that existed on earth, historical records as well as other things, to be destroyed. Moreover, many cataclysms have occurred which have effaced the traces of many events. Furthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Juk it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed.

Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.
("Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh", 2nd. ed.
(Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982), pp. 174-175)

The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)

...the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the tongue of Him Who conversed with Him (Moses).
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)

The "book of Juk" in the first quote is almost certainly a reference to the Jug-Basisht - a Persian translation of the Yoga Vasistha that was certainly available in 19th century Persia and that seems to have informed Baha'u'llah's opinions on both Hinduism and cosmology (I really don't want to prolong the discussion in detail on these - I've done the reading and you can do the same if you are so inclined).

In the end, it is obviously impossible to prove without doubt whether Baha'u'llah received his divine wisdom from reading books or from direct revelation (or both). But if it was by direct revelation, how does anyone else know that? Anybody could say they had received a divine revelation.

 

[siti]

This narrative is no longer plausible when considered from the perspective of what we know about scripture, science, history, and comparative religion.

Well scripturally, surely Jesus was the physically incarnated Son of God - not God - that's a huge difference between Christ and Krishna, not to mention a huge departure from scripture that most of mainstream Christianity has adopted and perpetuated. So scripturally there is definitely no basis for treating them as similar.

Scientifically, there is nothing but the physical - science has nothing to say about anything spiritual, so I would say that science is irrelevant to this discussion unless you are suggesting (far more plausibly than anything else I've read in this entire thread) that both Christ and Krishna (if they existed at all) were simply men.

Historically we can't even establish that either of them - or any of the other Hindu avatars - actually existed. So history also has little, if anything to offer - other than a little bit about how these beliefs have morphed and developed over time.

And comparative-religiously they simply don't compare - which was my point in the previous post.

I don't know too much about Hinduism but suspect mainstream Hindu beliefs concerning Vishnu, avatars including Krishna, and reincarnation could be reframed with a similar type of modern analysis.

Again, I suspect not - for the reasons given above.

 

[CG Didymus]

It depends on what your definition of dominant religion is. If by this, you mean a Religion which forces its beliefs on others, or pressures others to also believe, in what they believed, or discriminates against those who have a different religious believe, then, in my opinion it won't be able to establish peace, and most likely, there would appear conflicts and divisions between the followers of its own.
The Bahai Faith cannot be like that, as can be seen from its scriptures, it forbids Bahais from forcing their belief on others or even defend their own religion by use of weapons. Also, the Bahais, believe Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna...were all the Truth, and Islam, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrism,...all had the same and one divine origin, so they do not change their mind, about truth of the older Manifestations. Off course, the Bahai Scriptures provides a new interpretations of some of the sayings of the Previous Manifestations, because it says, some of Their sayings were not to be taken literally, and must be interpreted Symbolically or Mystically. But what is wrong with this, or what harm is in this?

But we didn't know these "sayings were not to be taken literally, and must be interpreted Symbolically or Mystically", until the Baha'i Faith told us so. For centuries each religion has been built on wrong assumptions. The assumptions being that they thought they had the truth. Dummies, why would they think that and not know?

So whichever religion went first, lets say Hinduism. They got it wrong. Many Gods and reincarnation. Buddha kept the reincarnation. Wrong. So should Jews have listened to those religions? No, both are wrong even though they were brought by manifestations. So Jews were better off only listening to what God told Moses.

Poor Zoroaster, not to many followers anymore. What happened? But he had some kind of dualism thing and resurrection. You tell me I don't know that much about him, but that sounds wrong. But then Jesus comes. A new truth from God. Believe on God's Son and you will be saved. You can dump the Law God told the Jews. Don't need it. The Jewish message was filled with symbolism and pointed to Jesus. If only the Jews knew... They would have accepted Jesus as their Messiah and all would be good? Right? Wrong.

They are probably better off staying with Judaism, "cause Christianity made Jesus God... Which is wrong. They have Jesus rising from the dead. Wrong. They believe Jesus is the one and only way to God. Wrong. They believe it is the same Jesus coming back. Wrong. Many believe the Creation Story and the Flood. Wrong. So what is right and true about Christianity? Nothing, nothing that's all that important. They also missed all the symbolism and made things literal when they weren't. And they missed Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah as the second, third and fourth coming of the "spiritual" Christ.

I wonder then, what religion has the truth? None, that is, if we go by the real truth as told by Baha'u'llah. So If I'm a practicing anything, I'm believing and following wrong beliefs, because the original teachings are either gone or misinterpreted. Isn't that what Baha'u'llah is really saying?