How are these Great Beings explained?

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, must have been a 'great many', considering what happened to the Baha'i' in Iran with regard to being persecuted.

They gave their lives so all could find Unity.

Most of the western scholars who write about Hinduism are downright anti-Hindu. It's because, by our nature, we're passive, and let things go. Only recently have Hindu scholars made rebuttals.

In the Baha'i' case, nearly all the scholars are Baha'i' although I question their scholarship. You should thank your lucky stars this is the case for now. In the future the vehement anti-Baha'i' attacks of will surely intensify. Are you longing for those days?

I long for them only that it is written it must happen before our Unity is found.

It is also written that an ever increasing amount of calamity will unfold until a great Calamity will also befall humanity, this prior to us implementing the lesser pearce.

The greater calamity will be the turning point where humanity again considers God.

Personally I hope all can just accept unity now, but the news tells me what is written will happen.

I wish you well through these times. You can rest assured, every Baha'i will wish all well in these times, even if one chooses to add to the woes that we all will face.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll take the time to discuss this with you if you also take my views into consideration. We talk about Bahai for months now; so, reach from your comfort zone and find other approaches since not all humanity are Bahai.

Can I offer this has been the point of the entire discussion. To be involved one first must identify what needs to be done.

In my opinion and belief our individual needs is to know ourselves first before we attempt to know someone else. If we individually are motivated to find our goal-a healthy non-harming goal-we'd be more content because we made the effort and we receive the results from that effort. It's the same as: If you worked all day and received a paycheck would you feel better about that paycheck then one someone gave you when you haven't worked for it?

The problem is internal.

We are talking about greater world peace.

It is Baha'ullah that has identified what mankind must do. Mankind will do this with or without knowing this to be so.

This is your opinion. Bahaullah (and The Buddha and, I don't know, Vinakaya) are not sole authorities for the betterment of humanity. We all are-all of humanity.

This is my opinion.

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." — AN 3.32

The Buddha uses many analogies for what we would define as peace. If I used Bahai language, lesser peace would be everyone being content with no crimes and acceptance of each other. In Buddhism, "greater peace" would be the end of rebirth. The point isn't to be at peace only in this life but to be at peace so we can die-end rebirth.

So that is the betterment of mankind, to die in peace-end rebirth.

So you would have to believe we continue to live here in many life times before reaching that state.

If they know, it will happen with more rapidity and less suffering, if they do not know or do not want to know, it will happen after a lot more suffering.

Since we are humanity, this whole thread, and we heard your offers, we know how you would like to end suffering.

This is not about you. It is about us.

So.... on that note, how would we as a humanity end suffering to achieve greater peace?

Remember, offerings aren't actions. We have to discuss what we can do as a people. That's American Culture. As a People.

One Document containing the direction mankind must head is 'The Promise of World Peace'. Given by the Universal House if Justice in 1985.

This does not refer to greater world peace. I know what you believe about lesser world peace. It is possible when people work together regardless the belief system. But you got to be willing to do more than just talk about it.

Nichiren Shoshu SGI is the closest view of lesser world peace associated with Buddhism.

SGI: Inner Peace to World Peace

Edit Oh. Found another A Human Approach to World Peace by the Dalai Lama (Not SGI of course)


What you guys are talking about is lesser world peace. Greater world peace, according to The Buddha, does not involve god. It is specifically ending rebirth.

1. To get people to accept lesser world peace in and of itself, we need to work together.
2. In order to work together, we need to agree on the same goal
3. Once we agree on the same goal, we all find ways and steps to execute that goal
4. Years down the road, we hope our goal will create peace for future generations.

Lesser world peace has to do with politics and secular things (as so told by Bahai). We could probably do this.

If you read my posts, I am not talking about lesser world peace. I'm talking of greater world peace.

In my opinion, greater world peace means ending rebirth. It has nothing to do with god. I know you disagree.

That is the beauty of humanity. So, what should we do from here?

Are you going to walk away?

So lets discuss. What is needed for World Peace? We can discuss One point at a time and see if we can find wisdom in that point.

Greater or lesser world peace?

If lesser, we can do disarnment, if you like. I would get a vote and talk to the rest of humanity about it.

If greater, I'd probably have a religious discussion and find ways our religious goals can help towards greater peace without compromising our beliefs for the beliefs of one.

Should we start with Disarmament?

The Buddha said our greater lack of peace is from our attachments. Weapons etc are not dangerous in and of themselves. That's thinking external. I know you think externally. I'd say ask the rest of humanity about it. I'm good for disarmament but that would put my mother out of work at her federal job if we did that.

So, maybe an input from humanity. What is our next step if you want to disarm people and I do not. (It's not an external issue)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

this above line is the reason tony loves baha ullah, because he knows if he turns away he be missin the bus to planet bahubali. forget your tickets for hevean you pressure tact users , that is the most pathetic way to get converts.

Thank you for such a character reference.

What is Love and Fear of God is a good subject if you really want to know what is in my heart and not what you would like to see.

God bless and regards Tony

 

[RoaringSilence]

Thank you for such a character reference.

What is Love and Fear of God is a good subject if you really want to know what is in my heart and not what you would like to see.

God bless and regards Tony

you shouldn't use those lines on others...imagine the harm you do by saying that. you force fear of losing tickets and use the greed to save one's selfish interests to lure.

that is psychological torture

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Greater or lesser world peace?

Off to work, I will look at this tonight.

To get the Greater Peace first we need the Lesser as the foundation.

Thus the time we live in is building the Lesser Peace, we should talk about the design of that foundation, that will cement in place the Lesser and then Most Great Peace.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

you shouldn't use those lines on others...imagine the harm you do by saying that. you force fear of losing tickets and use the greed to save one's selfish interests to lure.

that is psychological torture

Ha ha

You like dishing out your own fear.

Do not worry the Fear Offered is Love.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Ha ha....you know we have already said that is not how it is.

This is what you said, Tony. "To turn away from any Face of God, once we have been made aware this is so, is to turn away from God."

So I have been made aware of all the prophets, and I have turned away from them. So you are saying I have turned my back on God. I don`t see any other interpretation. So are you now withdrawing that statement, or does it still hold true?

As an interesting side note, it might interest you that many Hindus, when exiting a Hindu temple, back away, so they don`t turn their back to God.

 

[siti]

I read the articles you asked me look at and commented. I don't know if you actually read what I posted by it wasn't all from Baha'i online.

If you want material from non-Baha'is there is excellent material included in the paper Tony posted:

The Bahá'í Faith

The Judgment of Contemporary Religious Studies...

Yes - this paper does a good job of establishing the appropriateness of classifying the Baha'i faith as an independent religion (as opposed to a sect)...I have clearly stated at least twice that I agree with this and this was not the question at issue. Can we move on from this misinterpretation of my question about syncretism...

 

[Vinayaka]

I wish you well through these times. You can rest assured, every Baha'i will wish all well in these times, even if one chooses to add to the woes that we all will face.

Regards Tony

Are you suggesting I am choosing to add to the woes?

 

[Vinayaka]

It can be if the mirror of our Souls become pure. The Great Beings are the pure Mirrors refelcting the entire Sun, in turn considering how much we polish our mirrors, that we can then also reflect.

At best, we usually reflect but a ray or two of the sun and not the entire sun.

Regards Tony

I'm going to reiterate an earlier suggestion, Tony, that you have been unable to follow. Instead of speaking as if your beliefs are facts, at least occasionally preface your posts with 'We Baha'i's believe'. It comes across as much more tolerant and way less condescending that way.

But it's up to you.

 

[siti]

Those are your words, not mine.

I believe your exact words word were "people who know next to nothing about..." to describe anyone who might think my suggestion that the Baha'i faith might be a hybrid religion had merit. How is that not an accusation of ignorance? The bias thing was Tony's and his intent was very clear and stems for the same assumption you make here:

I think the basic problem is you are reading what others who are negative or hostile to the Baha'i Faith are saying, without investigating what Baha'u'llah has actually said. I could be wrong.

You are.

Anyway, since I have already answered your obvious misinterpretations of my comments and cleared up the fact that I am not calling the Baha'i faith a sect of Islam - which idea I have never even suggested but which Tony and yourself have gone to great lengths to rebut anyway, perhaps we should move on.

And since I made it very clear from the beginning of this syncretism "sub-topic" that I was using the term (and also the terms hybrid and fusion) to refer to the recombination of religious ideas (I actually thought my original mixing of cuisines illustration made that pretty clear) and therefore applying it (them) in the more appropriate and serious scholarly sense that is encapsulated in this part of the paper that you quoted from:

"If by "syncretism" a scholar means the Bahá'í Faith is a complex product of original thought and original recombination of ideas already present in the world..."

And I have clearly already made remarks to the effect that

"...all religions are syncretisms..." and I entirely agree that in this case "nothing new is being said about the Bahá'í Faith." the question arises as to why Baha'is would object to the idea that their religion is syncretistic? We could, of course equally ask the same question of Shia Muslims or Protestant Christians - or even, dare I suggest - if I haven't already suggested - Buddhists - except that these are not the subject of the current topic. (Point is I am not singling out Baha'i in my interpretation of syncretistic religion but the Baha'i religion is the topic at hand).

So is the term "syncretic" objectionable? And if so why?

And then if the religion is not syncretic, in what sense is it "new" - i.e. what new religious ideas mark it as fundamentally different from other religions?

If it is "a complex product of original thought and original recombination of ideas" - what are the genuinely original thoughts?

 

[Vinayaka]

For the record, I agree that the Baha'i' is a religion on it's own, mostly because it's quite different than any other. But there are several religious groups on this planet that I would also call religions, that, like Baha'i, get little press. Whether we call them faiths or religions is rather irrelevant to me. What we need to do is look at heir contents, not how or what we call them.

I apologise for sidetracking the discussion somewhat into just what kinds of resources there are for the study of Baha'i'. I'm also curious to why there is an objection to the syncretic label. We have several sects within Hinduism that are syncretic. The loose term 'village Hinduism' Smartism, liberal Hinduism, Sanatan Hinduism, etc. are all syncretic to varying degrees, and nobody objects to it.

I would argue that Baha'i' draws almost entirely from Abrahamic concepts, with one notable exception, that of ahimsa.

List of new religious movements - Wikipedia

However, most of these don't seem to be as passionate about being considered a religion by everyone as the Bahai seem to be.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is what you said, Tony. "To turn away from any Face of God, once we have been made aware this is so, is to turn away from God."

So I have been made aware of all the prophets, and I have turned away from them. So you are saying I have turned my back on God. I don`t see any other interpretation. So are you now withdrawing that statement, or does it still hold true?

As an interesting side note, it might interest you that many Hindus, when exiting a Hindu temple, back away, so they don`t turn their back to God.

No it holds true, it is applicable to all of us and there are many levels of neglect.

Its foundation is Love. The fear is why would we deprive our own selves of that Love, it stands within all of us.

So the fear is not projecting that love and this has consequenses.

The world reflects those consequenses.

I see this reflected in the teaching of rebirth until one obtains the result they are after.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you suggesting I am choosing to add to the woes?

That is for you to decide.

This is the meditation I always consider when considering this matter.

"The good deeds of the righteous are the sins of the near ones".

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

No it holds true, it is applicable to all of us and there are many levels of neglect.

So according to you, I have turned my back on God. How nice! You don't even know me. This is the kind of talk I expect from an evangelical Christian who makes no bones about his lack of tolerance. Sadly, I'm not surprised.

 

[Vinayaka]

That is for you to decide.

This is the meditation I always consider when considering this matter.

"The good deeds of the righteous are the sins of the near ones".

That quote makes no sense. But then I don't know what sins are.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm going to reiterate an earlier suggestion, Tony, that you have been unable to follow. Instead of speaking as if your beliefs are facts, at least occasionally preface your posts with 'We Baha'i's believe'. It comes across as much more tolerant and way less condescending that way.

But it's up to you.

Ha ha a few more words to add each time

Never was one of so many words. Tried to find the paitence to write....that is one of the woes I add.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That quote makes no sense. But then I don't know what sins are.

SIN is Anything that is not Pure Good, that is not of God.

Thus how free will operates.

God created all Good for us to know and Love God in doing this evil, all the opposites became possible.

We are then born into this world given the ability and guidance to obtain to all that is good.

The quote to me says the more we find that good within us, the more we find how far from God we were.

To me the quote is the path to Humility.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So according to you, I have turned my back on God. How nice! You don't even know me. This is the kind of talk I expect from an evangelical Christian who makes no bones about his lack of tolerance. Sadly, I'm not surprised.

No I make no judgement. I just share what has been written.

Have you reached the Nirvana you are working towards?

Are you suggesting you have no higher state of mind to acheive?

I have an eternity to go.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

The first part, (as is usual with these types of papers) seemed spot on as a description. It agreed with almost everything I've learned from you guys. But you're right, at the end it always tries to show how one's own faith is far superiour. It seems the common tactic, and was used in Memnon's (sp?)paper on Hinduism and Baha'i'.

Still tough to find any more neutral papers, but that's most likely the academics have larger fish to fry than Baha'i'.

I believe your exact words word were "people who know next to nothing about..." to describe anyone who might think my suggestion that the Baha'i faith might be a hybrid religion had merit. How is that not an accusation of ignorance? The bias thing was Tony's and his intent was very clear and stems for the same assumption you make here:

You are.

Anyway, since I have already answered your obvious misinterpretations of my comments and cleared up the fact that I am not calling the Baha'i faith a sect of Islam - which idea I have never even suggested but which Tony and yourself have gone to great lengths to rebut anyway, perhaps we should move on.

And since I made it very clear from the beginning of this syncretism "sub-topic" that I was using the term (and also the terms hybrid and fusion) to refer to the recombination of religious ideas (I actually thought my original mixing of cuisines illustration made that pretty clear) and therefore applying it (them) in the more appropriate and serious scholarly sense that is encapsulated in this part of the paper that you quoted from:

"If by "syncretism" a scholar means the Bahá'í Faith is a complex product of original thought and original recombination of ideas already present in the world..."

And I have clearly already made remarks to the effect that

"...all religions are syncretisms..." and I entirely agree that in this case "nothing new is being said about the Bahá'í Faith." the question arises as to why Baha'is would object to the idea that their religion is syncretistic? We could, of course equally ask the same question of Shia Muslims or Protestant Christians - or even, dare I suggest - if I haven't already suggested - Buddhists - except that these are not the subject of the current topic. (Point is I am not singling out Baha'i in my interpretation of syncretistic religion but the Baha'i religion is the topic at hand).

So is the term "syncretic" objectionable? And if so why?

And then if the religion is not syncretic, in what sense is it "new" - i.e. what new religious ideas mark it as fundamentally different from other religions?

If it is "a complex product of original thought and original recombination of ideas" - what are the genuinely original thoughts?

That's good we are understanding each other better now and I have no disagreement with the Baha'i faith fitting into how you have defined syncretism in this post. The problem is that's it's an ambiguous term that has several meanings, including those that don't apply to the Baha'i Faith. It has taken us a while to come an agreement about this so it is a term that can clearly cause confusion and discord. Part of the problem is it's pejorative usage. Scholars also recognise these problems. Therefore I support the Baha'i position of not wishing to be identified with this label. Is that so unreasonable?