How are these Great Beings explained?

[siti]

I wondered if you may have skimmed over some important points.

@adrian009 - I am genuinely impressed by your patience which clearly surpasses mine by orders of magnitude!

I also find myself in agreement with many of the points you have listed in the sense that I agree that - for example - independent investigation of truth, gender equality (although I believe equity would be a more sensible goal), eradication of superstition and acceptance of scientific knowledge...etc...are important aspects of any rational religion that will be suitable for the post-post-modern era of the 21st century globalized (for better or worse) world that our children and grandchildren will inherit from us.

But almost none (if any at all) of these ideas are genuinely new and neither were they in 19th century. And that has been my point - that Baha'u'llah essentially repackaged existing ideas that were already in the world. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - unless you are claiming that the "novelty" of the ideas is evidence of divine inspiration of the miraculous kind.

I want to respond more fully - at some point - by comparing your list (if I may use it) with my own thoughts about what religion is (or at least might yet become) - but although all the thoughts are clear in my head - it will take me a while to get it down in words. In essence, I think Baha'u'llah might have been onto something - especially if your point about eradicating superstition is to be taken at face value. Clearly, the global brotherhood of humanity has moved on significantly since the mid-19th century - clearly we need a genuinely new religious paradigm if we need one at all. Don't you think?

 

[RoaringSilence]

I think lots of people can see the downfall of despots happening. Napolean most likely got such warnings from some of his own advisors and people. Many people thought it, but in wisdom, held back, fully knowing some letter wouldn't do any good.

Do you really think a letter from a vaguely known religious leader from some far off place would help Donald Trump or the North Korea guy stop their rhetoric?

vinayak if you want to be manifestation just send one letter with hate poetry ( hire someone professionaleth who speaketh sanskrit ) to kim jong un , and just tell him he will fall certainly.
kim jing agni gachami swaha

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not in a superiority way, but in a level of understanding way. Does the university professor consider himself superior to his students, or a kid in kindergarten? Does a Math teacher feel superior to a Biology teacher or an English teacher.

Just as in these examples, I think it really depends on the individual, and none of us are mind readers.

In the use its embedded in the understanding of how a teacher is related to their student. I would never say Im superior to my students. In American culture thats how its viewed because my relation to my students is Im giving knowledge rather than having the same knowledge. To some students, though superiror isnt a happy word for it, they do see me as someone greater because they place themselves at a level of mindset as a child. I have to convince them kindly that its perfect to have respect for teachers And teachers make mistakes too.

I dont know if Bahai means "being over people (in a good way)" or not but the general understanding outside of politics is say your guru is superiror in knowledge than you.

It doesnt mean he is god or different. His level of understanding and relation to you as a guru rather than student makes him have the title he does.

Americans we use boss, god, teacher, titles of authority (and religions now I knowl. Other countries use titles of respect.

The understanding is the same: (guru vs student; president vs citizens). The expression is different: (wisdom vs knowledge and authority vs layman)

I wouldnt use that word but abrahamics seem to think in those terms. Thats why I asked if your belief is a fact-its something that is true of reality regardless if you believe it or not or does it exist only becauze Hindu believe it?

If its a fact, Americans belittle themselves (cover their heads, bow, etc) for what they think is true/fact and disregard what they believe. A slave to truth.

Dharmic religions have a different understanding of truth but I notice in Buddhism we still hold the Dharma at high regard nonetheless. We call it respect and honor rather than worship and submission.

Context same. Expression different. Only by this example.

 

[siti]

I want to respond more fully - at some point - by comparing your list (if I may use it) with my own thoughts about what religion is (or at least might yet become)

OK - here's the first installment...I'll post it now because if I wait until I finish the whole lot it will be far too long (if it isn't already)...

The necessity of independent investigation of truth

“The first [principle] is the independent investigation of truth; for blind imitation of the past will stunt the mind. But once every soul inquireth into truth, society will be freed from the darkness of continually repeating the past.” – Abdu’l Baha, Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 246-250

Abdu’l Baha enlarged on this in “Paris Talks” (1912) see Bahá'í Reference Library - Paris Talks, Pages 135-137.

Here, he begins: “If a man would succeed in his search after truth, he must, in the first place, shut his eyes to all the traditional superstitions of the past”. With that, I couldn’t agree more. In fact in 1794 – well over a hundred years before Abdu’l Baha was making this speech (and almost a quarter of a century before Baha’u’llah was even born) – one of my favourite English Radicals, John Thelwall, was making a strikingly similar observation: “…my mind was making its first painful efforts against the prejudices of education; Reason was becoming importunate for the free exertion of her powers; and Faith was no longer to be tamely held in the arbitrary chains of hereditary opinion”. Thomas Jefferson was, if anything, even more explicit when he wrote to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: “…shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

Jefferson and Thelwall were both clearly recommending independent inquiry into matters of religion a century before this became the “first principle” of the Baha’I faith and, as it happens, both found themselves inclined towards deism – essentially acknowledging that the apparent evidence of design in nature pointed towards the existence of a Divine Designer who did not concern himself overtly with the day to day affairs of his human creation. Both, after an “independent investigation of truth”, rejected divine revelation as an infallible indicator of religious truth. And that seems reasonable – after all, how could I, or Abdu’l Baha for that matter, independently know what may or may not have been revealed to Baha’u’llah alone?

For this reason - and this is an incredibly important part of the picture in my view - revelation is to be rejected along with prejudice and superstition. This is not to say that revelation does not happen, but unless it happens to me, I can only ever have indirect, second-hand knowledge of its content. In what sense then, can I be said to be following Baha’u’llah’s injunction to “see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others” if I am simply accepting reports of God’s revelation to someone else?

With that in mind, the rest of the “new” principles that proceeded from Baha’u’llah’s (possibly inspired) pen must be taken at face value. Their “novelty” or otherwise becomes irrelevant - except as a means of assessing the claim to divine inspiration based on novelty - and we have to look at whether these principles can be independently verified by a combination of observation and reason based on a logical interpretation.


The Oneness of humanity, seeing ourselves as one people regardless of race, nationality, or creed

This seems uncontentious to me in principle – even if any genuine implementation of the principle on a global scale seems a distant prospect. An “independent investigation” would of course underscore this statement – evolution reveals that we are indeed all brothers and sisters. But it was hardly a new idea – “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. (Galatians 3:28). Correct? Yes, probably. Novel? No. Divine inspiration required? No.

The Oneness of religion

Again, not a new idea (religious unity being even more explicit in both the Bible and the Qur’an – I’m sure I don’t need to give references in this case) – but this one is potentially far more contentious. Who is to say that religious unity is desirable? What principles that could be uncovered by an “independent investigation” prove that there is but one path to “God” (if there even is a God) or “truth” (whatever that might be)? How do we know that God or truth looks the same from every angle? Maybe it just doesn’t. Maybe God purposely reveals himself in a different manner to different people just as Baha’is have him revealing himself sequentially in different ways to suit the different times of the revelations, maybe he reveals himself simultaneously in different ways to suit the different cultures to which the revelation is made. Maybe “truth”, as I have written in a brief essay I wrote several years ago, is a mountain with many peaks and it is up to each one of us, through “independent investigation” to scale it the best of our ability and find our own “truth”. Maybe God, if there is one, needs that more than we do. Maybe God can only see “himself” through the eyes of his intelligent creation and desires to get the fullest picture possible by having them each observe him from a different vantage point. The assumption of religious “oneness” is, in itself, prejudicial to a genuinely “independent investigation” of reality. Correct? Probably not (IMO). Novel? Certainly not. Divine inspiration required? No.

...to be continued

 

[Dawnofhope]

The subconscious mind, when relaxed, often says what it truly thinks. I believe you meant what you said, and are now trying to wiggle your way out of it. But there's nothing wrong with Baha'i's thinking they have sight while the rest of us are blind. What's wrong is when it's broadcast to us, while at the same time proposing love for humanity and unity.

I accept my choice of words wasn't the best. However as a metaphor the use of physical sight in regards to the receptivity of the heart is profound IMHO. It is used not only in the Abrahamic Faiths but the Dharmic ones too.

“Because a man neglects his ever-present Self through the evil of ignorance (spiritual blindness), he is called ‘one who commits suicide”.

Isha Upanishad: Verse 3

I appreciate this is from a sacred text that as a Saivite Hindu you may not follow.

Of course, I am a Baha'i and you are a Hindu. I believe God wants us to recognise all His Great Teachers, not just one or two of them. He wants us to follow all His Teachings, not just the ones that suit us. God wants us to see the good in all people, not just the ones who are like us. God wants our hearts to burn with love for all whom we come in contact from diverse places around the world. That is my belief.

When the veil is lifted between this world and the next for us to truly have spiritual sight and not just fleeting fragments we see a more complete picture. In the final analysis you view of the universe may be the better one, and only God knows for certain as far as my limited vision can discern.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I recognise that other people's beliefs are valid for them, and don't try to alter their beliefs, other than the ones that apply to my faith. But that's more for the outsider, just so they get the alternative view. But as I've indicated lots, everyone should think their own faith is the best for them. The superiority comes in when you think it's best for others. When ordering at a restaurant, if one person orders for everyone else, he thinks he knows what's best. If he orders peanuts for a person with peanut allergy, that person will die.

That is true. On the other hand if I have a peanut allergy I don't try to remove all the peanut dishes or ask for them to be listed lower in the menu to give preference to my personal tastes.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Just how successful that has been is up for debate. When we notice less of the condescending approach, I suppose it's a sign. But there is a time to fold 'em, as well.

Interfaith debate is not easy. Over the last seven or so months since this thread started I have learnt a lot including about Hinduism, other religions, my own faith, and others and about myself. I appreciate the time you have put onto this discussion. We are all free to drop in and out as we please. I'm always happy to have you here.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think lots of people can see the downfall of despots happening. Napolean most likely got such warnings from some of his own advisors and people. Many people thought it, but in wisdom, held back, fully knowing some letter wouldn't do any good.

Do you really think a letter from a vaguely known religious leader from some far off place would help Donald Trump or the North Korea guy stop their rhetoric?

Of course it was never going to have any influence on Napolean III as a letter from the Universal House of Justice would have no influence on Donald Trump or North Korea.

However, Baha'u'llah believing Himself to be the Manifestation of God for this day felt compelled by God to make explicitly clear to the Kings and Rulers of the world God's purpose. He believed an opportunity existed for world peace and to avert catastrophic events for humanity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Sutta you have shared deliberately avoids the question of the existence of God or gods, the soul, and life after death. Are you aware of any Suttas that lean one way or the other?

Yes, all suttas I came across doesn't talk about the existence of a creator. They talk about gods or better word deities. The creator god (if one likes) The Buddha acknowledges us Brahma. Mara, a deity incarnation of Brahma tried to trick The Buddha into believing in Brahma and that everything is unchanging and eternal. The Buddha disagreed and proved Mara wrong. Some people I noticed on websites translate Mara as satan to find some type of connection with Buddhism and abrahamic view. Like @Vinayaka was mentioning thousands of posts ago many interpretations you see about Hinduism (and Buddhism) are people trying to reconcile their older religion or most popular with the one they convert to.

Here is nice short video and Dhamma talk.

However nice Buddhism is to diversity, there is only one teacher that leads to enlightenment. If one believes Bahaullah, Muhammad, and The Buddha all lead to god it's mish mashing teachings in which followers outside Bahaullah and Unitarian views do not hold. The video above explains the confusion practitioners would have if they tried putting elements in other traditions with Buddhism.

Instead of elements with Bahaullah, it's concepts and ideas from other traditions in Bahai. It holds the same message and context in the video. The nun in the video was pretty calm about it. Not all people have that type of patience; I certainly don't.

The closest concept or idea that Buddhist and Bahai hold at their core foundations is ending suffering. How, why, when, and who are completely different. But I was reading your last or second to last comment to Vinakaya. Yes, we can learn from different teachers about god-if god is what one believes. At the same time, you have to acknowledge which teaches actually speaks of the same god you believe in and which teachers believe in god to begin with.

So, Christianity, Islam, and maybe Zoroaster, don't know, you may get away with to an extent. Dharmic religions, no. Kind of like saying you are learning about god from a book about recipes. We learn about god (or our faith) in different ways and from different resources; nothing wrong with that.

When it becomes part of our faith and misinterpreted, that's the problem.

But Buddhism leans away from god. The Buddha sees god as an attachment because he is eternal and not changing with which The Buddha taught otherwise.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In other words, those who recognize the new spiritual teacher can spiritually see while those who do not are spiritually blind. In a nutshell.

Its not what I meant but acknowledge the way I phrased it contributed to it being seen that way.

The issue isn't your stance on who is spiritually blind and who isn't based on one's recognition of a new teacher's teachings. It's how one presents these viewpoints whether they express it passively as to not offend people or aggressively to the point of proselytizing.

I believe we are all spiritual wayfarers on this journey called life, that will pass as quickly as the blink of an eye.

I believe none of us are perfect and we all have blindness, ego, and foolishness to overcome. I certainly do.

In Buddhism, the four noble truths kind of helps with this. First you admit and acknowledge the issue (as how it affects you and/or others), the cause of the issue, acknowledging there is a way to resolve the issue, and finding the steps to resolve it.

However, if one doesn't recognize and/or acknowledge the issue, then it's hard to see the cause of the problem, acknowledge the solution, and make steps to resolve it.

Hence why this thread goes in circles. Some Bahai (and maybe others not Bahai, don't know), don't acknowledge or know there is a problem because their belief (or bias) blinds them to how it affects others. Also, many get to the cause stage but don't want to take steps to solve it unless it affects them personally.

I think part of the problem is understanding each other despite our diverse beliefs and backgrounds. Another aspect is how we communicate. Do we listen or do we each stand on our soap box and preach?

There is no question that the Baha'i faith presents a challenging world view. I'm still getting my head around it, and I've been a Baha'i for over 27 years.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, all suttas I came across doesn't talk about the existence of a creator. They talk about gods or better word deities. The creator god (if one likes) The Buddha acknowledges us Brahma. Mara, a deity incarnation of Brahma tried to trick The Buddha into believing in Brahma and that everything is unchanging and eternal. The Buddha disagreed and proved Mara wrong. Some people I noticed on websites translate Mara as satan to find some type of connection with Buddhism and abrahamic view. Like @Vinayaka was mentioning thousands of posts ago many interpretations you see about Hinduism (and Buddhism) are people trying to reconcile their older religion or most popular with the one they convert to.

Here is nice short video and Dhamma talk.

However nice Buddhism is to diversity, there is only one teacher that leads to enlightenment. If one believes Bahaullah, Muhammad, and The Buddha all lead to god it's mish mashing teachings in which followers outside Bahaullah and Unitarian views do not hold. The video above explains the confusion practitioners would have if they tried putting elements in other traditions with Buddhism.

Instead of elements with Bahaullah, it's concepts and ideas from other traditions in Bahai. It holds the same message and context in the video. The nun in the video was pretty calm about it. Not all people have that type of patience; I certainly don't.

The closest concept or idea that Buddhist and Bahai hold at their core foundations is ending suffering. How, why, when, and who are completely different. But I was reading your last or second to last comment to Vinakaya. Yes, we can learn from different teachers about god-if god is what one believes. At the same time, you have to acknowledge which teaches actually speaks of the same god you believe in and which teachers believe in god to begin with.

So, Christianity, Islam, and maybe Zoroaster, don't know, you may get away with to an extent. Dharmic religions, no. Kind of like saying you are learning about god from a book about recipes. We learn about god (or our faith) in different ways and from different resources; nothing wrong with that.

When it becomes part of our faith and misinterpreted, that's the problem.

But Buddhism leans away from god. The Buddha sees god as an attachment because he is eternal and not changing with which The Buddha taught otherwise.

I enjoyed the video and agreed with it.

The Nun explained that there are certain traditions from your previous religion that you can bring to the practice of Buddhism such as love, compassion, and some of the ethical teachings. There are some practices such as worship of an Abrahamic type God that you can not.

It is exactly the same principle in the Baha'i Faith. You can not take beliefs in no God, or many gods into your practice of the Baha'i Faith as it is incompatible.

As one from a Christian background, I could not take a belief in a resurrected Jesus or Jesus as God incarnate into my new found faith. However most of the Christian Teachings I could bring with me and continue to hold them close to my heart.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is exactly the same principle in the Baha'i Faith. You can not take beliefs in no God, or many gods into your practice of the Baha'i Faith as it is incompatible.

Kinda see why this, um, thread lasted so long?

You literally (from a Hindu and Buddhist view) can't take a belief in many gods or no-creator god beliefs without the former having the experience of Brahman thereby knowing whether the many-god view correlates with your faith and the latter, if the no-god view does.

In both, it's based on practice and experience. In Buddhism, we seek guidence from The Buddha and Dhamma but unlike abrahamic view, the suttas and sutras are not sacred texts but a reflection on our Buddha nature (Mahayana) which that reflection is sacred not the text itself. So, the text can say Baje Naka Mugi but if understand and practiced, the words are no more point the actual practice and experience.

That's why in Buddhism being part of the Sangha is essential but, of course, not required. One can't be part of a Sangha and Bahai at the same time if going by the video.

In my opinion, the revealed teachers (outside Bahaullah, his son, etc) can only teach you compassion, wisdom, and things of that nature. But the foundation of these teachings are so drastically different that trying to learn about your god by looking at Krishna, Vishnu, and Vaishnavite practices is near impossible to compare.

It's harder to talk with you about the differences in Christianity and Bahai because Catholic experiences, at least those who are devoted to their faith without bias, would be the foundation, The Church interpretation of scripture second, and then scripture. Since The Church kinda put the bible together, it's hard to really say Bahai is right since the faith is new and not part of the abrahamic trilogy.

and you can still learn from christ nonetheless.

Shrugs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There is no question that the Baha'i faith presents a challenging world view. I'm still getting my head around it, and I've been a Baha'i for over 27 years.

I have found the more that is known, the less you realise that you do know

I see it as maybe as One cell of knowledge in the Hundred Thousand Thousand Lamps and their contents . Most insignificant....but applicable to what we are to obtain to in this world. Did you ever get to read the provisional translation of the Tablet of the Universe by Abdul'baha? I would like to see that translated officially.

I would like to have a coffee and a chat with you One day, my wife does want to do a NZ Trip.

May life be always well, stay happy - Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Though, I do think the fact that people argue and fuss and fight over religious differences is, quite frankly, childish. That's what this world needs to lose. More so, that is why this thread IMO needs to die, because everyone here could continue to go back and forth arguing about different understandings of things (as has been done for almost 600 pages), but what exactly would that solve? What does it serve to prove? Truthfully, it serves only to prove that people will pointlessly argue with each other over things that they may never agree on. Again, disagreement is cool, all well and fine, but arguing is not. Never. In the end, you'll still have your religion; @Carlita hers; @loverofhumanity, Adrian, Tony, and myself, we'll still have ours.

With all of this said, I'm done with this thread. If people desire to continue with the pointless back-and-forth, then y'all go ahead, man. I'm through with it, and debating religion period. I hate it in general. This thread really solidifies my deep hatred.

Hey DJ, I had recalled Abdu'l-Baha had said that when two people argue about religion they are both wrong.

In brief, O ye believers of God! The text of the Divine Book is this: If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the Divine questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong. The wisdom of this incontrovertible law of God is this: That between two souls from amongst the believers of God, no contention and dispute might arise; that they may speak with each other with infinite amity and love. Should there appear the least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question from the Interpreter. This is the irrefutable command!

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’í World Faith—Selected Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Section Only), Pages 423-429

Strong words really.

Thank you for your frankness which has caused me to reflect.

I do agree with @Vinayaka that for the most part our conversations have been civil and progress has been made. As far as I can see this thread is currently an ongoing conversation between 10 people, and any of us are free to leave or take time out at any stage.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have found the more that is known, the less you realise that you do know

I see it as maybe as One cell of knowledge in the Hundred Thousand Thousand Lamps and their contents . Most insignificant....but applicable to what we are to obtain to in this world. Did you ever get to read the provisional translation of the Tablet of the Universe by Abdul'baha? I would like to see that translated officially.

I would like to have a coffee and a chat with you One day, my wife does want to do a NZ Trip.

May life be always well, stay happy - Regards Tony

That would be fantastic Tony. Any time you pass through my town it would be great to have a coffee and I have place for you and your wife to stay with us. That offer is extended to any of the regular participants on this thread regardless of faith.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Kinda see why this, um, thread lasted so long?

You literally (from a Hindu and Buddhist view) can't take a belief in many gods or no-creator god beliefs without the former having the experience of Brahman thereby knowing whether the many-god view correlates with your faith and the latter, if the no-god view does.

In both, it's based on practice and experience. In Buddhism, we seek guidence from The Buddha and Dhamma but unlike abrahamic view, the suttas and sutras are not sacred texts but a reflection on our Buddha nature (Mahayana) which that reflection is sacred not the text itself. So, the text can say Baje Naka Mugi but if understand and practiced, the words are no more point the actual practice and experience.

That's why in Buddhism being part of the Sangha is essential but, of course, not required. One can't be part of a Sangha and Bahai at the same time if going by the video.

It is the practice of the virtues taught in all the religions that enables us to work and live together in harmony. If our traditions and beliefs enable us to do just that, then our purpose is achieved. If such beliefs and traditions become barriers then questions need to be asked.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences of your Buddhist practice.

In my opinion, the revealed teachers (outside Bahaullah, his son, etc) can only teach you compassion, wisdom, and things of that nature. But the foundation of these teachings are so drastically different that trying to learn about your god by looking at Krishna, Vishnu, and Vaishnavite practices is near impossible to compare.

It's harder to talk with you about the differences in Christianity and Bahai because Catholic experiences, at least those who are devoted to their faith without bias, would be the foundation, The Church interpretation of scripture second, and then scripture. Since The Church kinda put the bible together, it's hard to really say Bahai is right since the faith is new and not part of the abrahamic trilogy.

and you can still learn from christ nonetheless.

Shrugs.

That is true and thank you for sharing your experience. I can only share my experience as a Baha'i who has come from Christianity and how that works for me. It would be useful to hear from Baha'is who have come from Buddhist or Hindu backgrounds and their experiences.

Of course each faith tradition has teachings that fundamentally contradict each another, even within Faiths. I think Buddha emphasising practice and virtue was extremely wise and in all likelihood would have reflected in part a reaction to the beliefs and practices of Hinduism which He grew up with.

How much should we look at what we have in common as opposed to our differences?

At what point can our practices become insular rather than embracing of diversity?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

It is the practice of the virtues taught in all the religions that enables us to work and live together in harmony. If our traditions and beliefs enable us to do just that, then our purpose is achieved. If such beliefs and traditions become barriers then questions need to be asked.

In Buddhism, the virtues are based on the practice not the practice on the virtues. We can believe in wisdom, and compassion, etc all day long; but, without practice, to put it bluntly in my opinion, they mean nothing.

So Hindu practice A brings about compassion B

Bahai practice C brings about compassion D

Buddhist practice F brings about compassion G

It's best and more respectful to say we all have letters of compassion rather than saying BDG are the same thing even though they are built off of and defined by the different letters preceding them. All my posts in this thread in a nut shell.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences of your Buddhist practice.

You're welcome. Always good to hear differing religions. I actually looked up Bahai once in my life time when the internet first start becoming popular. I was still in the middle of what I thought was christianity and figure since Bahai believe in god maybe the definition of god is different than christians since I don't believe in god. What drove me away was the different manifestations in one faith. I was never a universalist.

This is the first time actually talking to people with whom the website I saw represents.

That is true and thank you for sharing your experience. I can only share my experience as a Baha'i who has come from Christianity and how that works for me. It would be useful to hear from Baha'is who have come from Buddhist or Hindu backgrounds and their experiences.

Indeed.

How much should we look at what we have in common as opposed to our differences?

Differences and diversity are the same. Diversity is diversity because of our differences. Our differences are beautiful because they make us diverse.

If Bahai cannot discuss or see differences as positive, to me it is a contradiction that they would accept diversity with open arms. It is an insult to diversity if you do not recognize what makes them diverse: our differences.

At what point can our practices become insular rather than embracing of diversity?

You cannot embrace diversity if you do not find positivity in differences.

I mean, Bahaullah does literally say unity is taking away differences to find similarities. Bahai literally said in the first pages of this thread that the rays come from one sun and the waves are part of one ocean.

There is nothing morally wrong with your intentions. It is the facts we are questioning not your view or mode of greater and lesser world peace. (I wish I can write this on the board somewhere. Ha.)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So Hindu practice A brings about compassion B

Bahai practice C brings about compassion D

Buddhist practice F brings about compassion G

Compassion is Compassion. Whoever practices it, practices compassion and brings life to the virtue into the reality of this existance.

Choosing to practice this virtue makes one compassionate, be they of Faith or no Faith.

We can all be One in Virtues, the barrier of Names is ours to erect, or pull down.

Notice the world loves pulling down the barriers people keep trying to raise. Notice all those that want distinction and to raise barriers, cause more chaos in this existence.

I do not need to argue this, It is just a point to consider.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Tony, I didn't reply to you. Also, your post has a negative tone in it which, again, you do not need to make a positive and healthy point. If you want to argue and then split when it I ask too many questions, don't reply.

Compassion is Compassion. Whoever practices it, practices compassion and brings life to the virtue into the reality of this existance.

Accepting diversity means you learn from people who have different views than you do. Instead of debating and defending your views against theirs, try to learn something about them instead. Take an example from peers.

We don't bite.

Choosing to practice this virtue makes one compassionate, be they of Faith or no Faith.

We can all be One in Virtues, the barrier of Names is ours to erect, or pull down.

That is your belief. We know this. Go deeper to accept diversity or drop Baha'u'llah's teachings on diversity to have your own opinion. It is your choice just don't debate about it.

Notice the world loves pulling down the barriers people keep trying to raise. Notice all those that want distinction and to raise barriers, cause more chaos in this existence.

Wait. I thought the world was putting up barriers to block what they have in common?

This is totally opposite of what you've been saying for thousands of threads so far.

I do not need to argue this, It is just a point to consider.

Make a more nicer and positive approach and then it would be easier to speak with you. I can speak with Adrian and Loverofhumanity because their approach is reflective and inquisitive.

If that is how Bahaullah's personality is (and Christ and definitely The Buddha's), why not express the same personality online not just in person?

That...and...

What do you think of the comment about differences and diversity. If Bahai accepts diversity, and we are diverse by definition because of our differences, how are differences negative?????

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, I didn't reply to you

Yes I am aware of that, that is why the comment was a thought offered to consider and not a point to be further argued. I had chosen the later, but I am weak. See if I can be stronger. My apologies.

I wish you well always. Regards Tony