How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

[

Religious diversity and religious harmony Few excerpts.

All religions are for the purpose of human happiness. They all teach ethics and compassion and stress harmony among people. Philosophically there are differences, and while recognizing those, we can still appreciate the similarities. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of Avalokiteshvara or Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and the patron saint of Tibet. Bodhisattvas are believed to be enlightened beings who have postponed their own nirvana and chosen to take rebirth in order to serve humanity. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, describes himself as "a simple Buddhist monk." Dalai Lama once said that he believes the real religion is compassion.

....

Thoughtful essay, thoughtful website.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thoughtful essay, thoughtful website.

I guess I have nothing more to say for now.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

. I dont see the sun as the foundation. I see the colors as foundations. Once the sun hits the colors, those colors are different. The colorw make the church beautiful not the sun. Without the colors, whats the purpose of the sun?

. I see the light rays are the Results of the sun but each ray is still a reflection of their own color. Same direction, different color.

Nutshell: Foundation of diversity starts at the colors not by the sun.

These comments are not based in science as sciences tells us the Sun is the Foundation of Light. Thus the explanations you have given are not working.

The Sun is the source of light and no Rays are possible without the Sun.

Different colours are refraction of light from the sun upon water droplets and objects which then are refleced through the lens of our eyes, sent to our brain and decoded.

The Sun does not hit colours, it gives Light.

Thus the Sun is the Foundation of the Church. Peter said it well when Christ asked Peter who He was. Peter Said you are Christ, the Son of the living God. It was upon that statement that Christ said the Church woukd be built.

Christ does not need the church, the church needs Christ.

As to how much the Church refelcts Christ is how much of a rainbow it is to humanity. How pure it uses the Water of Knowledge, determines the purity and wonder of the resulting rainbow.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My guess is that this is a translation issue in one of two places. Persian and Arabic have a word, mokhtalef, which means either being different to one another (dieversity), or disputing with one another (conflict). English "differences" as the same two meanings: if we say "settle your differences" it refers to the things that cause disputes, but if we say the differences between the flowers make a bouquet, we mean what makes them unique, and not, what makes them argue with one another.

So far as I can see at a glance above, what you have been expressing here is identical to the Bahai teaching, which is "unity in diversity" and not "unity by being all the same."

You have a good point with the definition of differences. I think some bahai think I'm speaking of the first definition when I am speaking of the latter. Also, I learned something new.

Bahai and I see things differently. I used the sun rays through a colored stain glass window. Bahai would say the colors are reflections of the light of the sun (sun meaning god). I don't believe in god. So god is not the foundation. The colors make up that foundation.

Since I do not believe in god, diversity starts at the colors. The foundation of the light of red is the glass painted red. Likewise with blue and orange. The sun isn't the foundation of what makes each color different. It's diversity itself regardless if the sun exists or not.

Some religions believe in multiple gods. Some no god at all. Yet, in each religious minds, we are still a diverse humanity. So it does not start at the sun but at the colors.

That is different than Bahai because I would need to believe in god as a prerequisite for that belief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Own up and acknowledge your belief for what it is. Bahaullah says take away differences to bring unity-just say that. Making peace is also being honest with others not trying to find what you guys have in common.

If you attribute something to Baha'u'llah you need to supply a quote to confirm your personal view.

Thus please support this satement with a quote, "Baha'u'llah says take away differences to bring unity".

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

These comments are not based in science as sciences tells us the Sun is the Foundation of Light. Thus the explanations you have given are not working.

The Sun is the source of light and no Rays are possible without the Sun.

Different colours are refraction of light from the sun upon water droplets and objects which then are refleced through the lens of our eyes, sent to our brain and decoded.

The Sun does not hit colours, it gives Light.

Thus the Sun is the Foundation of the Church. Peter said it well when Christ asked Peter who He was. Peter Said you are Christ, the Son of the living God. It was upon that statement that Christ said the Church woukd be built.

Christ does not need the church, the church needs Christ.

As to how much the Church refelcts Christ is how much of a rainbow it is to humanity. How pure it uses the Water of Knowledge, determines the purity and wonder of the resulting rainbow.

Regards Tony

To make my opinion easier.

Diversity starts at the colors not at the sun.

If you attribute something to Baha'u'llah you need to supply a quote to confirm your personal view.

Thus please support this satement with a quote, "Baha'u'llah says take away differences to bring unity".

Regards Tony

Please please please read my posts.

Some of them are very very short. I have posted Bahaullah's quote verbatim.

You cannot back out of your belief. It is what it is. Please stop refuting something you believe in. I have a different opinion.

If you want to debate, I am not the person to speak to.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I used the sun rays through a colored stain glass window. Bahai would say the colors arereflections of the light of the sun (sun meaning god). I don't believe in god. So god is not the foundation. The colors make up that foundation.

You have just said you do not beleive in the Sun that gives the light.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seriously Tony. You're looking more to debate not to understand-especially not in context.

These comments are not based in science as sciences tells us the Sun is the Foundation of Light. Thus the explanations you have given are not working.

Because you are not getting the analogy. It has nothing to do with science.

The Sun is the source of light and no Rays are possible without the Sun.

I did not talk about the rays. The rays are the sun. Period.

Different colours are refraction of light from the sun upon water droplets and objects which then are refleced through the lens of our eyes, sent to our brain and decoded.

Sheesh, Tony. Why are you debating?

If the analogy is off, address to the analogy not the science.

The Sun does not hit colours, it gives Light.

In English there are metaphors in everyday talk. Hit is one of those metaphorical words that means more than one thing if you understand it in context. Unless English is not your native language and you were not raised in the English language, I assume that either this flew by you are you are intentionally making my point more complex than what it is.

Thus the Sun is the Foundation of the Church. Peter said it well when Christ asked Peter who He was. Peter Said you are Christ, the Son of the living God. It was upon that statement that Christ said the Church woukd be built.

Your belief is your belief.

Say "it is my belief...in my opinion...this is how I see things...this is bahai view..."

Your tone is condescending and it is hard to converse with you if you are debating my points rather than understanding them for conversation.

Christ does not need the church, the church needs Christ.

Where'd this come from?

The Church is built on Christ. What is your point?

As to how much the Church refelcts Christ is how much of a rainbow it is to humanity. How pure it uses the Water of Knowledge, determines the purity and wonder of the resulting rainbow.

What????

What got you talking about Christ? I just said the sun hits the window (metaphor) through the colors. Each ray when it hits the colors shines blue, red, and yellow depending. The source of diversity is from the colors not from the sun.

What are you debating?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To make my opinion easier.

Diversity starts at the colors not at the sun.

Without the Sun there is no Diversity.

We miss too much knowledge if we do not include the Sun.

Thus Lets leave it there, as I wish always to thank the Sun for all that it gives and not ignore it. As in living this life it allows me to do, I would be neglectful to leave it out of conversations I have about its life giving bounties.

I said that at your invitation to say what I really want to say.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have just said you do not beleive in the Sun that gives the light.

Regards Tony

I don't believe in god that creates humanity; so, no, by analogy, I do not.

This is all an analogy Tony.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I said that at your invitation to say what I really want to say.

Why do you need to debate it to make your point, though? It is not necessary. I love debates, really I do but if you or anyone else isn't having a conversation, I learn more about how to keep my patience then what the other person says.

Also, the colors (painted windows) are still there regardless if the sun is there or not. The colors aren't defined by their reflection but by the paint on the glass. Shift your point of reference if you want to understand what I am saying

without debate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg here is an article I gave Adrian. I think you'd benefit from the read. It's long but it's about how Buddhist see unity in diversity and how we approach (or I'm learning to approach) people of differing faiths. It's a good read but not something you can take in in one setting unless you are interested.

Religious Diversity and Religious Harmony
If you want to reply, read the whole thing first.

 

[Vinayaka]

I find a little irony in the idea that we are diverse about unity in diversity. Interfaith discussion is trying, at the best of times. When you say reflectively, 'well, I think I have a different point of view than you do,' and the response is a condescending and blunt, 'No you don't," its a bit of a drag. From this thread, I could make a list titled, 'The many ways to hinder a conversation."

Article on "Unity in Diversity" in India - Important India

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Also, the colors (painted windows) are still there regardless if the sun is there or not. The colors aren't defined by their reflection but by the paint on the glass. Shift your point of reference if you want to understand what I am saying

This is beyond reasoning with Carlita. I am a Libran who must see the Logic. You can not modify that arguement to make sense of it unless you include a light source.

There is no colour without light, Be it the Sun or any another source.

Colour is refaction of light, without refraction the colour is the black of darkness.

What are you debating?

I am not anymore and I have been cured of debate forums, to which I have been reminded many times this actually is, thus thank you and thanks to all, Goodbye all.

I feel liberated, but defeted by self at the same time, oh well such is life

Regards to all and may life be great for you all...over and out....Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am not anymore and I have been cured of debate forums, to which I have been reminded many times this actually is, thus thank you and thanks to all, Goodbye all.

lol You're been cured of debate forums? I mistake the word debate for conversation.

One thing The Buddha taught was acknowledging the problem (there is suffering), knowing the cause, acknowledging there is a solution (what should I do to make peace), and making steps towards that peace.

He says humanity cannot see they are suffering (they have a problem). So they run (they deny it or they block it) because their minds are not trained to handle the situation. Once you reflect to address the issue brought up, you can see how it affects not only you but other people too.

Just dawned on me. Does Bahaullah ask if humanity has a sickness before he decides to cure them?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Tony, we are just saying changing your approach and put clauses to what you say from time to time. Compromise in conversations is a must to have fluid conversation.

Also, the article I sent you is very well-written. I think you'd like it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Religious diversity and religious harmony Few excerpts.

All religions are for the purpose of human happiness. They all teach ethics and compassion and stress harmony among people. Philosophically there are differences, and while recognizing those, we can still appreciate the similarities. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of Avalokiteshvara or Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and the patron saint of Tibet. Bodhisattvas are believed to be enlightened beings who have postponed their own nirvana and chosen to take rebirth in order to serve humanity. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, describes himself as "a simple Buddhist monk." Dalai Lama once said that he believes the real religion is compassion.

We experience the compassion of others from infancy throughout our lives. Without the kindness and efforts of others, it would be impossible for us to sustain our lives alone.

That's an excellent article thanks Carlita.

Here is another excerpt I wanted to share, which I think is very relevant to this thread and completely resonated for me.

The value of interreligious dialogue
What, then, is the value of interreligious dialogue? How should it be conducted? The purpose is to benefit people, not to debate and arise victorious. When we approach dialogue with an open mind, respect and willingness to learn, we benefit others and are benefited in return. However, if we or the other party lack this attitude, then it is better not to discuss religion. For communication to occur, there has to be a sincere wish to listen, not simply to speak. If this is missing, it is best to excuse ourselves from the conversation. Were it to continue, the discussion would degenerate into an issue of power, not spirituality, with one party trying to dominate or convert the other. Genuine interreligious dialogue occurs in an atmosphere of mutual respect and genuine interest. It is a sharing of spirituality that inspires all parties. Someone once observed, “When philosophers and theologians meet, they argue. When spiritual practitioners and mystics meet, they smile.”

Of course, like many religious adherents I don't come close to living up to the high ideals of my faith. However like the mystics, some of these discussions make me smile, perhaps for different reasons, but its genuinely a pleasure and privilege to be here.

I have attended two Dalai Lama talks btw on occasions he has visited my town.

 

[Dawnofhope]

am not anymore and I have been cured of debate forums, to which I have been reminded many times this actually is, thus thank you and thanks to all, Goodbye all.

I feel liberated, but defeted by self at the same time, oh well such is life

Regards to all and may life be great for you all...over and out....Tony

You could always have a break, reflect and meditate like the Buddhists do.

 

[siti]

It is useful to consider where Persia stood in the modern world and exposure that Baha'u'llah may have had to European ideas.

Dear @adrian009 I know you were waiting until I finished responding to your list but I just wanted to clear this up first. I think this really misses the point and highlights the circularity of the arguments used to establish Baha'u'llah's credentials as a Divine Manifestation.

First a claim is made that the teachings are sufficiently different from previous teachings (that's what I meant by "novel") to mark them as being of divine origin.

Then it is claimed that Baha'u'llah couldn't have learned them from human sources because he never went to school.

Then, when it is pointed out that the teachings were (at least in essence if not explicitly) already in the world (e.g. in Greek culture or in post-Enlightenment thought in Europe or America) the argument is made that these facts would not have been accessible to an early 19th century Persian...and since He was clearly divinely inspired anyway, He would not need to have access to the writings in order to have the ideas...

...But all that misses the point entirely - if the idea was already present in the world, where did it come from? Were Thomas Jefferson or John Thelwall divinely inspired? Was Cleisthenes? And yet they had ideas remarkably similar to some of Baha'u'llah's socio-political ideas long before he did. Whether he read Jefferson's letters, Thelwall's the Peripatetic or Aristotle's the Athenian Constitution is irrelevant. If the idea was already in the world - already in the imaginations of men - there is no longer any need to invoke divine revelation as an explanation for the "novelty" of the idea.

I am cognizant of the fact that this entire thread had the original objective of highlighting what it was that marked the Divine Manifestations of the Baha'i faith as different from all other men (wasn't it?). And the fact is that none of the teachings that you have listed are sufficiently different from the teachings of other men and women who made no claim to divine authorization, to mark them as the sayings of "Great Beings" under divine inspiration or, for that matter, particularly special as ideas of human origin (even if some of the ideas are just what we need in our time).

All that said, I will press on with my assessment of your list because it is helping me to sort the wheat from the weeds in terms of what I think a genuinely relevant 21st century religion should be saying about the important issues that face the human family. I will at some point (and perhaps not in this thread) also point out where I think "God" fits into that - and in a strange twist - it probably turns out that Baha'u'llah was divinely inspired (in my own definitely not divinely inspired worldview) - but certainly not in the exclusive way that Baha'is claim.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here is another excerpt I wanted to share, which I think is very relevant to this thread and completely resonated for me.

Yeah, I like that section too. I think the article pretty much summed in part what I was trying to say in this thread.

Of course, like many religious adherents I don't come close to living up to the high ideals of my faith. However like the mystics, some of these discussions make me smile, perhaps for different reasons, but its genuinely a pleasure and privilege to be here.

Actually, you do well with the discussions here. Remember, thinking in the "superior vs. inferior" view is what the article was also speaking about. We are all equal because we all have potential to be buddhas ourselves.

I have attended two Dalai Lama talks btw on occasions he has visited my town.

Wow. I only heard him on YouTube. I always wondered how the Dalai Lama became so well recognized by most the world almost like the pope. You have insight on that?