How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

The History is accurate as it is only very recent. I met Collis Featherstone, who was appointed a Hand of the Cause in 1957 and he met Shoghi Effendi the Guardian and Grandson of Baha'u'llah.

He in turn knew people who met both Baha'u'llah and Abduld'baha and were their relatives, thus the stories are recorded and accurate History.

I don't understand how meeting this chained interaction proves his being sent by god. The Church still stands so I'm very sure the apostles existed unless they made it all up. This is my personal view. If Christ stood in front of me, I honestly see no need to worship him or see him as a great being compared to you or myself. So, I don't know why holiness period stopped in present day then shifts when present day gets a good enough years in the past in order for it to be holy. It's really the people.

How do you know I have not and I am now not?

It's actually only you, to tell you honestly. It's a lot of things you say and don't say. It's not your schedule. Forums give you years to actually reply to a thread. It doesn't disappear, I noticed looking at the forum history.

I see you speak with other people here and they make a statement or good post and you generalize it back to how bahai sees it or dismiss it all together by changing topics.

I asked a few uncomfortable questions that I still remember thousands of posts ago. I think I asked you and another person, think Lover. I never got an answer because I was told that virtues are only positive and the conversation was abandoned. If it's not in the Bahai light, you honestly don't shift your point of reference to talk about other things within religion unless you agree with it or find a reason to challenge it to find similarities with bahai views.

It's exhausting, really. That, and without clauses and transitions, it makes it hard to know what your opinion is, what bahaullah said, whether you speak fact, or you trying to make a point. It's hard to find the point in generalized statements. Probably why I keep repeating myself too.

 

[siti]

I had never heard of this fellow until now, in this thread. Sounds like a very innovative thinker, well ahead of his time. Thank you.

He certainly was ahead of his time - even he was aware of this, reportedly making a deathbed statement in November 1858 to a clergyman who asked if he regretted wasting his life on fruitless projects: "My life was not useless; I gave important truths to the world, and it was only for want of understanding that they were disregarded. I have been ahead of my time."

---Digression alert (please forgive this off topic side track - just this once)---

In Britain, at least, he is regarded as the Father of British socialism and of the Cooperative Movement - both of which, of course, have had a very significant influence on the lives of millions around the globe in terms of employment and working conditions, commerce and retail trade.

His brand of socialism was very different from that of Marx and Engels of course - but his projects aimed at establishing harmonious utopian socialist communities all ended in failure and the capitalist world moved on under the power of Adam Smith's "rational self interest" rather than Owen's "spirit of universal charity". Perhaps he was not only ahead of his time, but also mistaken about the general propensity for positive character development in humans given the right conditions (which I believe would have been his "first principle" if one had to be identified) - or maybe not and maybe if we had collectively plumped for harmonious cooperation rather than the "free market" the history of Europe and America (at least) might have been very different. Perhaps we would never have made it to the moon, built Concorde or invented smartphones. On the plus side, we might have avoided a couple of world wars and eliminated poverty - at least in the West. I wonder if its too late to change our minds? (I am sensing an essay in the offing with this as the concluding paragraph - maybe in the politics forum sometime).

---End of digression---

 

[loverofhumanity]

Illusion (maya) is understood differently by different schools. Often it just means 'temporal'. When the mind is functioning in that area of consciousness, it's very real, or seems very real. It is only at the deepest of mystical deaths when form becomes formless is there absolute reality. So for 99.999 % of the souls on this planet, that is our reality. In my school we use 'relative reality' for that.

It’s difficult, probably impossible to understand these realities in words. You would have to be brought up and raised a Hindu to grasp these things.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thank you. Yeah, I visited a couple houses of worship in the states Mosque, Hindu temple, Synaguage, and of course countless domination christian churches. Not more so searching but more curiousity since I knew Id never be Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or any other denomination but catholic. The atmosphere is uplifting nonetheless.

I dont think the problem is enjoying various foods. Its being a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim cook at the same time and offering four different meals to actual Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim withiut being part of their religion. In Deaf culture, if I chose a name sign for myself because I feel connected by virtue of interest in sign, Id be disrespectful because its their language not mine. Im not a food person but Im sure its the same with food in multiple cultures. If a family cooks a dish in X way and you know how to cook that same meal, Im guessing that meal wouldnt be the same as the family. If you offered it to people As If it were the same while recognizing differences, thats the issue.

Its very tiny probably for bahai but not for hindu (as seen on this thread).

But its nice you recognize it nonetheless. I never talked with anyone who hasnt experienced cultural appropriation. In the states it has a lot to do with racism more so than religion.

Hi Carlita

I’m only a Baha’i cook and not a very good one but what I enjoy most is sitting at the same table with the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew and Zoroastrian as well as atheist and humanitarian and eating their delicious food.

So far I’ve tried Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian food but not Zoroastrian yet unless theirs is Persian which I love.

But just one kind of food always I would lose my appetite.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You can read the Pamphlet here - that seems like quite a good place to start. Bear in mind it was written in 1841 and Owen makes a number of points that are remarkably similar to what was claimed to be "new" in Baha'u'llah's teachings. Although I had studied Owen's writings a while back I'm afraid I didn't do him full justice earlier - especially in regard to the idea of international "cooperation between nations and peoples for the betterment of the world" - In fact, Owen specifically called for the establishment of a "Congress" of the nations of the world to "terminate their wars and all wars" and to decide amicably how best to achieve the rest of the goals he sets out in the pamphlet for a more just human society on a global scale. Of course Owen was a socialist and he makes no bones about his distaste for the private ownership of property - something that Baha'u'llah did not echo. Otherwise, I think Owen makes almost all the same points about human society that Baha'is do and he wrote them down decades before God chose to reveal them to Baha'u'llah. Anyway, read it for yourself and let us know what you think. Personally, I reckon if divine inspiration is required to explain Baha'u'llah's teachings, then Robert Owen likewise - and he might even have agreed with that himself eventually - in his eighties, he became a spiritualist and apparently among the departed souls he consulted from beyond the grave were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. In a way, its kind of a pity that socialism took an atheistic turn after Owen's time - perfectly rational - but Owen's almost evangelistic and optimistic enthusiasm for a fairer society is refreshing to read even today. Don't you think?

You can read the Pamphlet here - that seems like quite a good place to start. Bear in mind it was written in 1841 and Owen makes a number of points that are remarkably similar to what was claimed to be "new" in Baha'u'llah's teachings. Although I had studied Owen's writings a while back I'm afraid I didn't do him full justice earlier - especially in regard to the idea of international "cooperation between nations and peoples for the betterment of the world" - In fact, Owen specifically called for the establishment of a "Congress" of the nations of the world to "terminate their wars and all wars" and to decide amicably how best to achieve the rest of the goals he sets out in the pamphlet for a more just human society on a global scale. Of course Owen was a socialist and he makes no bones about his distaste for the private ownership of property - something that Baha'u'llah did not echo. Otherwise, I think Owen makes almost all the same points about human society that Baha'is do and he wrote them down decades before God chose to reveal them to Baha'u'llah. Anyway, read it for yourself and let us know what you think. Personally, I reckon if divine inspiration is required to explain Baha'u'llah's teachings, then Robert Owen likewise - and he might even have agreed with that himself eventually - in his eighties, he became a spiritualist and apparently among the departed souls he consulted from beyond the grave were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. In a way, its kind of a pity that socialism took an atheistic turn after Owen's time - perfectly rational - but Owen's almost evangelistic and optimistic enthusiasm for a fairer society is refreshing to read even today. Don't you think?

Yes it’s so refreshing a pity it didn’t become a worldwide movement but in a way it has and it shows he was a very great visionary no doubt inspired. Although we don’t say he was a Prophet I personally would think that he was affected by the Holy Spirit.

This is a treasure to me as it embraces so many concepts which I feel our world needs desperately if it is to reach that wonderful millennium. If he were alive today him and I would be best friends I would hope.

In the 1840’s too William Miller was inspired and said that the return of Christ was imminent according to the Bible. Actually 1844. So during that period it was a time of great expectation and inspiration as if people suddenly could see a window to our future.

Owen’s vision was magical and he would be hoping it will all come true and seeing things like the internet would have made him jump for joy.

Owen is incredible and such a visionary. He saw the future with such accuracy. This is a wonderful story that should be kept alive as it is the spirit of our age now and the things he so wonderfully speaks of are desperately needed today.

Many thanks for posting this. It’s incredible!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If it was "Holy Spirit" then Robert Owen had it before Baha'u'llah was even born in which case, should he not also be hailed a "Divine Manifestation"?

He made no claim, so no. We are all created with the potential if Virtues and Vision, but born of the Human Spirit.

The Manifestations are born of the Holy Spirit. We can only connect with this with the Spirit of Faith and to the extent we live a life of virtues.

This is what makes the Bab different when asked;

“Whom do you claim to be,” he asked the Báb, “and what is the message which you have brought?”

“I am,” thrice exclaimed the Báb, “I am, I am, the promised One! I am the One whose name you have for a thousand years invoked, at whose mention you have risen, whose advent you have longed to witness, and the hour of whose Revelation you have prayed God to hasten. Verily I say, it is incumbent upon the peoples of both the East and the West to obey My word and to pledge allegiance to My person.”

This is Baha'u'llahs Declaration to all the world - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts | Bahá’í Reference Library

I do not think you will find Robert Owen made such a claim, thus he was a very nice progressive person in tune with what was to come.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Thanks @loverofhumanity and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

Just one question (which I know I have alluded to before) - how does one judge the merits of a claim to divine revelation by independent investigation?

Clearly it can't be judged on the basis of novelty as @adrian009 suggested previously

the Baha'i Faith is based on an entirely new revelation.

because almost none of the ideas that became the principles of the Baha'i faith were new (as I have demonstrated).

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks @loverofhumanity and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

Just one question (which I know I have alluded to before) - how does one judge the merits of a claim to divine revelation by independent investigation?

Clearly it can't be judged on the basis of novelty as @adrian009 suggested previously
because almost none of the ideas that became the principles of the Baha'i faith were new (as I have demonstrated).

Hi Siti, I've been busy with work this week. Thank you for the time you have taken to provide an assessment of Baha'i teachings. I agree that if we were to analyse each individual teaching, we would be able to find something similar or comparable somewhere else, whether in other religions or socially progressive movements.

The Baha'i Revelation seems to me to be a theology that is 'distinctive' from either Islam or Christianity, and any social movement that we could find arising out of Europe and probably anything else. Distinctive does not mean unique or completely novel, but has a very different 'feel' to it, than other Abrahamic Faiths or social movements such socialism that emerged out of Europe. A closer examination of the Baha'i teachings as you have done and comparing them to other religions or movements seems to me an invaluable exercise to establish or refute this.

Investigating a religion and establishing its truth (or otherwise) is a personal journey for each one of us. Has a founder lived a life that is morally outstanding and distinguished? Do the teachings provide an effective means for positively transforming individuals and communities?

The words of Jesus come to mind:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them,
Matthew 7:15-20

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I wonder if its too late to change our minds?

No we can always do that.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks @loverofhumanity and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

Just one question (which I know I have alluded to before) - how does one judge the merits of a claim to divine revelation by independent investigation?

Clearly it can't be judged on the basis of novelty as @adrian009 suggested previously
because almost none of the ideas that became the principles of the Baha'i faith were new (as I have demonstrated).

We are told first to read about their person and their life. As their person is the first thing we will see the difference in and their life will attest to what they say.

If both these are not enough, we are told then the further bounty of the Word they have shared has been given as Proof. Judge the Word against the day you live in, it will offer solutions to current issues.

Also The Covernant of Baha'u'llah signed by His own pen is unique. He has left us the path that must be followed. Christianity and Islam did not have this firm foundations, so lasting splits were possible and did happen;

"It should be noted in this connection that this Administrative Order is fundamentally different from anything that any Prophet has previously established, inasmuch as Bahá’u’lláh has Himself revealed its principles, established its institutions, appointed the person to interpret His Word and conferred the necessary authority on the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances. Therein lies the secret of its strength, its fundamental distinction, and the guarantee against disintegration and schism. Nowhere in the sacred scriptures of any of the world’s religious systems, nor even in the writings of the Inaugurator of the Bábí Dispensation, do we find any provisions establishing a covenant or providing for an administrative order that can compare in scope and authority with those that lie at the very basis of the Bahá’í Dispensation."

Bahá'í Reference Library - The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 143-157

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If Christ stood in front of me, I honestly see no need to worship him or see him as a great being compared to you or myself.

I like to consider that we have no way of knowing our reaction. We did not live at this time.

In the case of Baha'u'llah there is ample stories about this. There were many who thought as you have posted, all of them could not do as you said. They all bowed before him, or forgot what they were going to say and were speechless in front of Him.

They are many great stories. Many went in with specific questions to ask and as stated were dumfounded when they entered the chamber where Baha'u'llah was talking. They forgot the questions they were to ask and during the course of the Revelation Baha'u'llah was speaking, Baha'u'llah answered those questions for them.

Twice an assassin was to shoot Baha'u'llah bith times lost the nerve and once dropped the gun.

"..On one occasion, a member of the Persian consulate hired an assassin to murder Baha’u’llah. The assassin, named Reza Turk, approached Baha’u’llah as he walked along the banks of the Tigris. When he came face to face with Baha’u’llah, he fumbled and dropped his gun. Baha’u’llah turned to one of his companions and told him to pick up the man’s gun, hand it back to him, and point him towards his home, remarking,

“He seems to have lost his way.”

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Investigating a religion and establishing its truth (or otherwise) is a personal journey for each one of us. Has a founder lived a life that is morally outstanding and distinguished? Do the teachings provide an effective means for positively transforming individuals and communities?

Well that's moved the goalposts a bit but OK - we can think about that too. First though I would like to conclude my thoughts on the Owen/ Baha'u'llah teachings comparison. Clearly you agree that the novelty (or otherwise) of the teachings is not the clincher in proving divine authorization - although Owen got most of the ideas before Baha'u'llah, they certainly were not new - he was apparently aware of Rousseau's French Socialism and may perhaps (I don't know for sure but its a definite possibility) have read Thomas More's Utopia which dated from 300 years earlier still. Neither can divine revelation be proven (or disproven) on the basis of how widespread the application of the teachings becomes - Marx may have eschewed utopian socialism of the Owenite variety in favour of a less peaceful approach, but Owen's ideas must have had some influence on Engels who wrote articles for Owen's newspaper when he was in Manchester - but there are most definitely more socialists in the world than there are Baha'is.

So what is the big difference between Owen and Baha'u'llah? I would argue that the most striking difference is that Owen's teachings are unquestionably of human origin and amenable to independent investigation. Baha'u'llah's are not.

Has a founder lived a life that is morally outstanding and distinguished? I am not aware of any scandal or controversy regarding the moral character of Robert Owen - save charges from clergymen of irreligious activity. He had just one wife (as per the standard of earlier "Manifestations" and unlike the founder of the Baha'i "Dispensation" who had three at once) to whom - as far as we know - he remained exclusively loyal until her death. He was certainly distinguished - both in life and legacy - as the father of British socialism and of the Cooperative Movement (which was established in earnest by a group of Owenites in Rochdale, Lancashire). And as I said - there are certainly more socialists in the world today who would espouse Owen's ideas in some measure than there are Baha'is.

Do the teachings provide an effective means for positively transforming individuals and communities? Well since they are so remarkably similar in both intent and content I don't think there is much to choose between them. But as I pointed out earlier, if there was a "first principle" of Owenism it was most definitely the faith that given the right circumstances and the right teaching, not only individuals and communities but the entire global order of humankind could be transformed to a "paradise" in which every one had their fair share of both work and its produce and as full a measure of human happiness as the earth could provide.

If Owen was guilty of anything it was naive confidence in the essential goodness of human beings. But I don't think that should be held against him in this analysis - do you? In the end, as with the teachings of Buddha, Jesus and Baha'u'llah, it was the fallibility of people, and not any particular failing on the part of the teacher, that got in the way of successful implementation. By the time Owen's optimistic hope for a fairer world established on peaceful and harmonious relations were being laid to rest having been sacrificed on the altar of selfish human nature, his ideas were being transformed by Marx and Engels into a strident faith that sought to implement them by force. Now doesn't that sound strangely familiar - and unmistakably religious?!!

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Just a quick clarification of what I said in regards to some of the Baha'i principles:

Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam before it the Baha'i Faith is based on an entirely new revelation. As discussed part of that new revelation is a restatement of past universal truths within the context of a new theology.

What's new? I thought I had answered that question earlier.

Here are a few concepts you may struggle to find in Islam or Christianity:

I'll provide a brief summary of the Baha'i Teachings that I believe can be distinguished from Christianity. In a later post I will explore possible reasons for these differences.

How are these Great Beings explained?

So I'm not arguing these principles are entirely new, but certainly distinct from Christianity and Islam, and presented very differently.

So Baha'u'llah's religion is distinct from Islam and Christianity. There certainly were ideas that were part of the European enlightenment though I wasn't claiming otherwise. It is unclear to what extent these ideas influenced Baha'u'llah or Persia. It would be useful to consider the conditions of both the Persian and Ottoman Empires during the nineteenth century.

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

I have come across people who have done poorly at school, yet in their adult life have developed incredible breadth of knowldege and can be extremely wise. We would not consider them divinely inspired. It is reasonable to consider alternative explanations for Baha'u'llah's knowledge and wisdom too. I accept the arguement as presented above is weak. The argument does reasonably support that Baha'u'llah did not develop His theology as a result of His upbringing and education through childhood and/or adolescence.

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.

The phrase 'sufficiently different' certainly my language and phrasing. Once again it can not prove divinity anymore than Arnold Schoenberg's or Anton Webern's distinctive atonal styles of twentieth composition proves divinity. It does add weight to the argument that Baha'u'llah's Teachings are not simply a rehash of either Islam and/or Christianity.

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...

The argument is that Baha'u'llah did not have the same access or exposure to Western Ideas that Europeans had. I am not ruling it out though, particularly during His time in Constantinople (albeit for just four months) that would have been quite cosmopolitan.

I hadn't referred to European thinkers from the enlightenment period, but it is reasonable to speculate that Baha'u'llah may been influenced by European thinkers. Arguments in support are His father's position as a minister of the court of the Shah, so perhaps some association with European powers, then His exiles to Bagdad, Constantinople, Adrianople, and eventually to Akka. However Persia, unlike parts of Europe was not a place encouraging of liberal, secular, or socially progressive ideas. There doesn't appear to have been much if any tolerance of such ideas and the Babis and early Baha'is certainly weren't tolerated, and are not to this day. While social conditions may have advanced in Iran that Baha'is are no longer routinely tortured and butchered to death in horrific ways, they are coerced and imprisoned simply on account of following a religion.

...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.

The question as to what is Divine inspiration is an important one. I would suggest that as human beings we can all be Divinely inspired to some extent and it is all a matter of degrees.

I would also highlight that Divine inspiration does not come out of a vacuum, but is very intertwined with what is happening in the surrounding world and the needs of time as with both Jesus and Moses. Most Of Baha'u'llah's works were letters or epistles to people.

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).

Not my thread, but you can ask LH what inspired the idea to start it. The OP raises the question for me, as to what is distinct about the founders of the great religions, particularly Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam that their teaching have endured approximately 2500, 2000, and 1400 years with a sizeable portion of the world population following them. It has provided a starting point for a discussion. One explanation is that they were Divinely Inspired, but to argue that, may be like arguing for the existence of God. While there are arguments, I am not aware of any definitive and conclusive proofs, like we can mathematically prove the earth revolves around the sun. However it is a matter faith, and difficult to prove or disprove.

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.

I'm enjoy exploring these ideas and what you bring to this discussion. As well as being a Baha'i I have a scientific background and interest in history. Like you, I am here to learn. I hope to respond further soon.

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s difficult, probably impossible to understand these realities in words. You would have to be brought up and raised a Hindu to grasp these things.

For starters, these realities aren't in words. Can you describe the particular scent of a particular flower in words? Indeed, that's what I've been saying all along. Still there are males on this planet who think they know what it's like to give birth. The human ego, when remaining in the intellectual realm, is bondage to the soul. The spiritual realm, a higher level of consciousness isn't.

It isn't that you have to be a Hindu. It is that you have to be able to escape dogma.

 

[Vinayaka]

He made no claim, so no.

Claiming something doesn't make it true. Anybody can make any claim they want to.

In Eastern paths, anyone who makes personal claims about this sort of stuff is regarded with great suspicion. It is the wise man who makes no claims of his own wisdom/enlightenment (doesn't boast) but teaches wisely, acts with ethics, etc. that is regarded as a saint. There are perhaps 5000 fairly well known Hindu Gurus and Buddhist lamas teaching on this planet today. With few exceptions, they go about their business as spiritual leaders without undue pomp. The exceptions are often scorned.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think I'll close there as most of the non-religious aspects are covered and its abundantly clear that almost all of them were far from new ideas even at the time of Baha'u'llah's youth. Whether or not he had access to writings about these things is not the point. The point is the ideas were already well-established in either ancient, medieval or early modern thought. These notions are not the sign of divine inspiration but the signs of a maturing humanity - a maturing secular humanistic worldview in which the inherent value of each individual human life, regardless of ethnicity, creed or colour, was (is) becoming increasingly important in guiding the progress of nations and of the global human family. Long may that trend continue - with or without religion. As Abdu'l Baha put it "If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it". History will ultimately judge the matter - but unless we manage to somehow incorporate the age-old humanistic principles that are so strikingly similar to the "new" revelations of Baha'u'llah and divest ourselves of the need to look to "divinely constituted" religious authority to determine what we should think about reality, I'm not sure religion can make it as a long term strategy for social cohesion on a global scale.

I think you have done an excellent job of comparing Baha'i Teachings to other schools of thought. I had wondered about the spirit of the age or the dawning of a new era of humanity, that thinkers, social activists, artists and seers alike draw their inspiration from.

The Baha'i writings often refer to this theme. For example Abdu'l-Baha in discussing the equality of men and women speaks:

'The world in the past has been ruled by force, and man has dominated over woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the balance is already shifting; force is losing its dominance, and mental alertness, intuition, and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine and more permeated with the feminine ideals, or, to speak more exactly, will be an age in which the masculine and feminine elements of civilization will be more evenly balanced'

The Coming of Age of Humanity | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like to consider that we have no way of knowing our reaction. We did not live at this time.

In the case of Baha'u'llah there is ample stories about this. There were many who thought as you have posted, all of them could not do as you said. They all bowed before him, or forgot what they were going to say and were speechless in front of Him.

They are many great stories. Many went in with specific questions to ask and as stated were dumfounded when they entered the chamber where Baha'u'llah was talking. They forgot the questions they were to ask and during the course of the Revelation Baha'u'llah was speaking, Baha'u'llah answered those questions for them.

Twice an assassin was to shoot Baha'u'llah bith times lost the nerve and once dropped the gun.

"..On one occasion, a member of the Persian consulate hired an assassin to murder Baha’u’llah. The assassin, named Reza Turk, approached Baha’u’llah as he walked along the banks of the Tigris. When he came face to face with Baha’u’llah, he fumbled and dropped his gun. Baha’u’llah turned to one of his companions and told him to pick up the man’s gun, hand it back to him, and point him towards his home, remarking,

“He seems to have lost his way.”

Regards Tony

To me, .. it's more for example when I was in the Church, I have high respect for priests. So, if i see a priest passing by, I'll nod and say father. It's respect than anything else. At the temple I bow to the nun and the nun to me and so forth. In The Buddha's day, the disciples would kiss his feet or wash it, sit at The Buddha's side, and then talk with him.


However, one time someone tried to touch the Pope's robe on t.v. and my friend remarked "that's like jumping on Jesus!" I was more shocked than anything else. Hoards of people see something in the sky and I'm the only one back up to watch the crowd mesmerized.

Then I think is this how people would be like if their savior comes. To me, that is creepy. Kissing the pope's ring is already creepy. I bow for years but if someone like Hitler or Christ came, that's a totally different outlook not because of the people but the people who represent them and how they are portrayed in history. If "god" came in the air, I'd bow more in fear not in love. That's how our society is set up. It is all cultural.

If you take culture out of it, these great beings are just people like you and I. Seeing someone walk on water or thousands of people seeing the Eucharist as god has a place in my head but none of worship but respect. Nothing like you see Muslims do. If I bowed to an American, that is total disrespect depending on the situation outside of religion. Religion has a lot of codes of respect that's normal for one culture but not for another.

So, with the OP, I don't see these great beings as great in the manner of worship. The Buddha did not want people to depend on him but the Dhamma. I am shocked he is a manifestation when he didn't claim superiority over the Dhamma. In some suttas and Dhamma talks, the Dhamma is seen over the person who expressed its existence. So, the manifestation should be the Dhamma not The Buddha if going off he suttas.

But if The Buddha came here, I'd bow the customary bow in his country and depending on my title, I'd sit beside him and talk to him not worship him or put him higher than myself. I can't see that the same with christ nor can I bahaullah. Especially when Bahaullah is pretty young. Time period has a lot to do with how people consider one holy. Take someone today. Christians says "those of that of man" as if time period of holiness just disappeared after B.C. period. The Church still tries to find miracles to designate people as saints.

Anyway, the only reason I'd react to any of the other people is because of what I've been told about them for years. If you don't know who The Buddha is, when he shows up, why would your reaction be more than a stranger who crossed your path?

 

[Dawnofhope]

…then the question arises: how is belief in Baha’u’llah’s Divine status justified? In the final analysis we have only his word for it. So in what sense is Baha’i practice – in regard to the doctrines of Divine Manifestation and Divine Revelation (at least) not superstition?

This probably takes us back to when we first started talking on another thread earlier in the year. Although we can clearly see the negatives in religion, I believe it has also been an enormous force for promoting both moral and intellectual development. Many of the progressive thinkers you admire have been influenced by religion. Faith continues to a force for spiritual progress for millions of the worlds inhabitants. It is both unchanging and ever changing.

Again, it makes no difference that Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l Baha had probably never heard of Toland (though it is unlikely they could have failed to hear of Jefferson) – but the question is, if Toland and Jefferson could pluck these ideas from their own heads decades and centuries earlier, why would Baha’u’llah and Son require divine prompting to think of them somewhat belatedly? More to the point – how on earth are unsubstantiated claims of divinely inspired revelation to be assessed scientifically?

If we could do that, we wouldn't be here. IMHO one possible reason religion hasn't stood on the same firm foundation as science is because God give's us free will. He has set up creation for our education and development. Faith requires of us a different set of attributes than those required to excel in the sciences.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks @loverofhumanity and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

Just one question (which I know I have alluded to before) - how does one judge the merits of a claim to divine revelation by independent investigation?

As far as I can tell, all 'investigation' that I've seen has been to read Baha'i' opinions on such things. Although they call this 'independent' investigation, it isn't. I don't see how anyone could actually investigate the life of someone who lived almost 200 years ago other than to read biased testimonies.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

t it is reasonable to speculate that Baha'u'llah may been influenced by European thinkers. Arguments in support are His father's position as a minister of the court of the Shah, so perhaps some association with European powers, then His exiles to Bagdad, Constantinople, Adrianople, and eventually to Akka.

Yes, he knew a great deal about European religion, philosophy, society and politics. The worlds were not hermetically sealed. He was multilingual, and would have had more access to europe through Arabic translations and discussions than through Persian, but even in Persian there were travel diaries of progressive thinkers to consult.

The first Persian writer to mention is Mir Abdu’l-Latif Mosavi Shushtari (1759-1805), a Persian from a clerical family with a traditional religious education who later became a merchant and travelled to India. His travel diary for those years (1798-1801) Tuhfat al-‘`Alam was written in 1801 after his return to Iran, with an addendum added in 1804. As well as noting astonishing facts about India – such as the free mixing of men and women – it provides a second-hand, but comprehensive, account of French and especially English political history and systems of government as he had learned about them from sources in India. He identifies as key factors the separation of Church and State, the rule of law and equality in the law, modern technological innovations, the end of the absolute power of the monarch, elections, and the principle of consultation involving both nobles and commoners. He also describes freemasonry, and gives it the name faramushi (a play on the Persian word for forgetfulness). It is notable that his word for parliament, edalat-khaneh or House of Justice, was used in the same sense during the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, and in its Arabic form by Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha to refer to the elected councils of laymen which they envisioned administering the affairs of Bahai communities. For Shushtari, edalat would not imply a court of law: the term has the connotation of the fair distribution of recognition or resources among recipients, making it a good choice for the British Houses of Parliament, with Lords, clerics and commons all represented.

Mirza Abu Talib Khan Isfahani’s Masir Talibi fi balad Afranji reports his travels in 1798-1803, including a two-year residence in England and a shorter stay in France, and includes a detailed biography of Shushtari, with whom he was close (he was born in India in 1752; his father was from Isfahan). It was published in 1804 and 1812 (Calcutta).

Mirza Saleh Shirazi (b. circa 1798), one of the five students sent to England in 1815 by ‘Abbas Mirza, wrote admiringly of English society, which he called the ‘land of freedom.’

Then there are the progressive / modernist thinkers and writers in Persian, while those in Arabic are generally speaking ahead of the Persian in hearing and responding to European ideas. Afghani is one of these: Baha'u''ah refers to him and his writings in his Lawh-e Dunya:

"... It is reported that a certain person [1] went to the seat of the imperial throne in Persia and succeeded in winning the good graces of some of the nobility ... The aforesaid person hath written such things concerning this people in the Egyptian press and in the Beirut Encyclopedia that the well-informed and the learned were astonished. He proceeded then to Paris where he published a newspaper entitled Urvatu'l-Vuthqa [The Sure Handle] and sent copies thereof to all parts of the world. He also sent a copy to the Prison of 'Akká, and by so doing he meant to show affection and to make amends for his past actions."

Note that Baha'u'llah is reading the Egyptian press and an Encyclopaedia and a reformist newspaper published in Europe, and that he receives (and I know from other evidence) sends letters to leading reformist thinkers.

What is unique is not that he advocated democracy and popular representation -- which in his day were still unproven ideas, much discussed -- but that he made them religious principles. The world moves on, and one of the functions of the founders of religion is to adapt religion to the new circumstances. If there is no major reform, religion drifts out of contact with the current realities and becomes a strongly conservative force. But religion renewed can mobilise social forces for a new era. Early Christianity for example was not a conservative force, but rather a soft revolution.