How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

I stayed in a village and got bitten by a mosquito and became delirious and then these people started gathering around me and putting garlic around my neck and performing some sort of ritual.

I panicked and would you believe it I asked for a bicycle so I could peddle to the nearest hospital. Thing is I've never ridden a bicycle before!!

Garlic has a ton of beneficial qualities.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let's look at them together then.[/QUOTE

Its a contradiction. buddhist suttas dont zupport bahai claims. So how can you see buddhist interpretations without translating it through bahai eyes?

Your dodging the question

 

[Dawnofhope]

That parallels my thoughts on marriage. It's not just who you marry but also when you marry.

There are some really useful parallels when comparing being married to being an adherent of a religious faith.

First its a privilege to be married or to have faith.

Both require commitment and energy to make it work. In both instances we need to develop new behaviours and attitudes, and we often need to but aside old behaviours and attitudes that are either incompatible with our faith/marriage or will make success difficult.

Religion and marriage can be an assistance for our spiritual growth.

Its all a journey and at some stage we need to become humble, listen, and learn.

It all takes time of course, often many years.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Just to add: One of the things (Catholics mainly) they could do today is to abolish their stance on birth control. When we were in Dominican Republic, we encountered families of 9, 10, or more commonly, impoverished, and a Mother's health at risk. Tough to observe, especially knowing how one person could easily alleviate a ton of suffering. Outside of places where the people aren't so faithful, they just ignore that teaching. That's just one example. The consequential harm in India to morale, etc. has been atrocious.

Contraception is an interesting example, because it is a modern problem that none of the religious teachers of old mentioned.

I like the Catholics and can see where they are coming from, but it looks really out of touch when you have leaders that are unmarried men called priests giving advice to families and couples about marriage and sex.

The scenario now has become Catholic leaders turning a blind eye to their own rules because contraception has become an integral part of modern life for so many couples including Catholics.

Any thoughts @Carlita ?

 

[Vinayaka]

I like the Catholics and can see where they are coming from, but it looks really out of touch when you have leaders that are unmarried men called priests giving advice to families and couples about marriage and se

I like Catholicism as well, but from my observations it seems to differ from developed to undeveloped countries. I've only been to Dominican Republic (really majority Catholic) and India (just Catholic influence Christian minority) , though. I think a lot of us living in developed nations are naive about the harsh realities in developing nations. I used to wish I could just take my 'spoiled brats' in a upper middle class suburb where I taught for a 3 day tour to the favellas of Brazil, or anywhere else like that. I know thwe Pope has seen it, but don't know if he's 'felt' it. You guys think wars are a huge problem, try distribution of wealth and the resulting poverty or starvation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not learn from, considering their beliefs as facts and not a matter of perspective.

We've discussed this before and I wonder how much of this idea is to do with language or culture. I think we could both make a list of many beliefs that are not facts, and many facts that people do not believe in.

Here's some examples:

- It used to be common to belief a women's brain was smaller and inferior to a mans brain so she could not possibly make an important decision like deciding who to vote for in an election.

- In America many once believed that white folk were superior to their African-American citizens.

- Many Christians once believed that slavery was in accordance with biblical teachings.

In each instance it required people of vision to believe in something different and better (that many others didn't) to make a change. Not only did these people need to believe in something different but they were prepared to challenge the status quo.

Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks are examples from your country that come to mind.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe in these texts already. I have many of the books. Of course I'll consider thr Buddhist interpretations but not as fact until I've weighed them in my mind because that's what I have a mind to do.

To accept things blindly is where we all go wrong.

We have been given a mind to question, to learn. I cannot just accept someone else's interpretation as fact until my own mind analysis it.

The Buddhists know their teachings but like Christianity do not themselves agree on the facts so how am I supposed to agree with conflicting interpretations?

Which facts and which suttras because Theravada and Mahayana understand them differently and then there's Pure Sect Buddhism which I also belive a lot of what they believe?

So which suttras are you referring to? Be specific. Quote the suttra and give me the 'fact' that all the sects agree upon that I can agree upon. If you give me a suttra that the 3 different sects interpret differently how am I supposed to agree with all 3 interpretations if they contradict each other?

It's not that easy as just saying to me to agree with the facts as Buddhists see them because there is no united agreement on many of the suttras.

My suggestion is to quote the suttra then tell me what the 3 or more sects say is the 'fact' and then we can see if I can accept it or if I have to refer to the Baha'i view.

It may turn out I can accept most of it as is.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're giving me a blank piece of paper and asking me to sign it.

Let's take thr Dhamapadda. I believe it all. But what are the facts I am supposed to accept about it? Every Buddhist will interpret each verse differently and I can probably agree with all their interpretations but you're not telling me what the interpretations are, just asking me to sign a blank chrwuwe which my mind cannot do as accepting blindly without thinking or analyzing is wrong.

We must think and reason not just blindly belive everything. That's how religions go astray by not using reason.

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe in these texts already. I have many of the books. Of course I'll consider thr Buddhist interpretations but not as fact until I've weighed them in my mind because that's what I have a mind to do.

I would dispute that, merely on knowing that there are many contradictory verses in comparing two religion's texts. Heck there are lots of contradictory statements in single texts. So it would be impossible to believe in it all wholeheartedly. Tossing some out, choosing which ones you actually believe, etc. is possible.

To say you believe in it all is just overly simplistic.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I would dispute that, merely on knowing that there are many contradictory verses in comparing tow religion's texts. heck there are lots of contradictory statements in single texts. So it would be impossible to believe in it all wholeheartedly. Tossing some out, choosing which ones you actually believe, etc. is possible.

To say you believe in it all is just overly simplistic.

I need to be more specific I suppose. Let's take the Dhammapadda. I accept it but everyone is going to understand the verses differently. Some conflicting or contradictory passages in other books may be able to be reconciled if we look at them but no ones quoted any so I can't say until I am given some examples.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I like Catholicism as well, but from my observations it seems to differ from developed to undeveloped countries. I've only been to Dominican Republic (really majority Catholic) and India (just Catholic influence Christian minority) , though. I think a lot of us living in developed nations are naive about the harsh realities in developing nations. I used to wish I could just take my 'spoiled brats' in a upper middle class suburb where I taught for a 3 day tour to the favellas of Brazil, or anywhere else like that. I know thwe Pope has seen it, but don't know if he's 'felt' it. You guys think wars are a huge problem, try distribution of wealth and the resulting poverty or starvation.

I have no doubt that with colonisation has come both economic exploitation and bulldozing over cultures and peoples in the name of God. Our counties (Canada and New Zealand) of course are colonies too, but the wealthy ones. If we were to involve ourselves more amongst our indigenous brothers and sisters its not hard to see the disparity.

The Baha'is being the newest of the Abrahamic faiths, we cop a lot of the backlash. As the new Abrahamic Faith increasingly engaging in every aspect of the life of our communities, one of the first reactions for many is "What's really changed?" or "Its just more of the same".

Its not hard to see the religions of old struggling in the modern era and in our countries there is now a rapid decline in the number of Christians.

In regards to the problems of distribution of wealth, the disparity has become so severe that it must be one of the greatest threats to peace and prosperity in the world. National governments can only do so much, as it is the world economic system that is in desperate need of reform.

 

[Vinayaka]

I need to be more specific I suppose. Let's take the Dhammapadda. I accept it but everyone is going to understand the verses differently. Some conflicting or contradictory passages in other books may be able to be reconciled if we look at them but no ones quoted any so I can't say until I am given some examples.

Yes, you need to be more specific. I think that's lead to a lot of miscommunication here. We (Carlita and myself mostly) take you at your (vague, generalised) word, and then you go and contradict yourself. So specificity would indeed help a lot.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have no doubt that with colonisation has come both economic exploitation and bulldozing over cultures and peoples in the name of God. Our counties (Canada and New Zealand) of course are colonies too, but the wealthy ones. If we were to involve ourselves more amongst our indigenous brothers and sisters its not hard to see the disparity.

lol, I finally heard where you live. Must be tough looking up all the time. But of the two, I'd rather die by the gun than from starvation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

lol, I finally heard where you live. Must be tough looking up all the time. But of the two, I'd rather die by the gun than from starvation.

Its nice to know a little about who we are talking to.

I'd rather die of old age!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't call my beliefs, beliefs. When I do, it's for convenience reasons. If I say it as fact in a interfaith discussion, it makes it seem I'm claiming my fact as someone else's. If that other person doesn't understand what I consider is a fact, a fact without being insulted by my stating it is, then I would say so.

This is just an example of my point of view.

- Many Christians once believed that slavery was in accordance with biblical teachings.

This (and the other ones) are different than saying "Bahuallah is predicted by the founders of the other religions and promoted world peace just as Bahullah did."

If this is not a fact to you, and just a belief, it's hard to talk about your belief because to me it just feels like you can change beliefs. I rather talk more about what you know is true. Then I get more an idea of how you interpret reality and other religions incorporated in yours. If it is just a belief like above, then I can ask you one day about Bahaullah's statement and then another day, it's possible you can believe something else. The conversation would be wishy washy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe in these texts already. I have many of the books. Of course I'll consider thr Buddhist interpretations but not as fact until I've weighed them in my mind because that's what I have a mind to do.

To accept things blindly is where we all go wrong.

We have been given a mind to question, to learn. I cannot just accept someone else's interpretation as fact until my own mind analysis it.

The Buddhists know their teachings but like Christianity do not themselves agree on the facts so how am I supposed to agree with conflicting interpretations?

Which facts and which suttras because Theravada and Mahayana understand them differently and then there's Pure Sect Buddhism which I also belive a lot of what they believe?

So which suttras are you referring to? Be specific. Quote the suttra and give me the 'fact' that all the sects agree upon that I can agree upon. If you give me a suttra that the 3 different sects interpret differently how am I supposed to agree with all 3 interpretations if they contradict each other?

It's not that easy as just saying to me to agree with the facts as Buddhists see them because there is no united agreement on many of the suttras.

My suggestion is to quote the suttra then tell me what the 3 or more sects say is the 'fact' and then we can see if I can accept it or if I have to refer to the Baha'i view.

It may turn out I can accept most of it as is.

If you say you believe in The Buddha's teachings and you said there are many, even though the fact of these teachings don't depend on who believes it but the suttas themselves, how can you figure what you actually believe is true from The Buddha and which is false?

I know you are looking it at your own mind, but religion is personal. There is no "one truth" (as said in the beginning). So your analyze has to be view it from a many-truth perspective. If you keep looking for the "over all one fact" you will get nowhere.

If I quote a sutta and you disagree with my and another Buddhist interpretation, that does not mean your interpretation is correct because you are not a Buddhist. You are not a Buddhist practitioner so your point of view as a Bahai would not be insinc with the suttas that are shaped by culture, language, and tradition. If you don't understand that, then your interpretations would not reflect Buddhism.

Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, among others, have core foundational teachings. For example, Christianity's foundation is human sacrifice. You sacrifice your sins/actions, to be with god by following the teachings of jesus. Whether you believe jesus is god or not does not matter. It does not matter if you see it metaphorical or literal. It does not matter what denomination you believe in. It does not matter how you see other people's views on the christian faith. It just means that all of their views are based on scripture. If the basic foundation in scripture is based or filtered by your faith as a Bahai, it is not christianity. If you are a christian and read it as a christian, that is christianity.

Only a christian can interpret christianity correctly regardless if he disagrees with his brothers and sisters. It is a personal faith and relationship with christ. There is no Bahaullah in scripture. No prediction of him. Nothing like that. As a Bahai you cannot see it. As a christian-not bahai/christian you would.

That is how you interpret it from a christian perspective. You have to be christian and have to be in union with other christians not Bahai.

But you got to get out of your head this one-truth issue and see people's beliefs as flurish based on their differing multiple cultures, traditions, and language. If you can't get pass that, then of course you can't see it through their eyes. It is possible but you have to separate yourself from the Bahai perspective.

Say I quoted Galations 2:20 "I have been crucified in Christ. The life I live is no longer I, but Christ that liveth in me. Insofar, I live not for myself but for the son of god."

This is one of my favorite verses when I was christian so, as a former christian, I was able to interpret this verse to help myself in Christ. Whether others agreed with it was not the point. My relationship was with christ and his father not with others.

Since I am not a practicing christian, I can still reflect on my interpretation and nothing more. But if I saw another scripture I am not familiar with, I cannot interpret it or analyze it correctly because I am no longer christian. To see it from their perspective (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc) I have to practice these respective religions.

Each faith have common foundations (with an a -s individual) to each religion. You have to be these practitioners to understand it. So the closest you can get is talking to others who do practice it, take their consideration as fact and even more so see truth as more than one.

Truth is not in a box. So, I can't just sprout different's suttas, scriptures (which I know more of), etc. You'd have to be interested in learning it from a christian perspective not your own.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're giving me a blank piece of paper and asking me to sign it.

Let's take thr Dhamapadda. I believe it all. But what are the facts I am supposed to accept about it? Every Buddhist will interpret each verse differently and I can probably agree with all their interpretations but you're not telling me what the interpretations are, just asking me to sign a blank chrwuwe which my mind cannot do as accepting blindly without thinking or analyzing is wrong.

We must think and reason not just blindly belive everything. That's how religions go astray by not using reason.

The Dhamapadda is fact not a belief. Interpretations are from people. Since you're not Buddhist and can onlly read this sutta from Bahai eyes, I ask you to talk to people who follow that faith and see many-truth perspective and then "sign the document." If I just put The Dhamapadda on the document and ask you to sign it as fact can you do that? If it's' just a belief, then I don't see how you believe in it. We can believe in the abstract concepts like love and peace. I actually believe in The Buddha. I believe in the Dharma. I believe in the Sangha. I believe in Karma. I believe in the incarnations of The Buddha. I believe in Buddha nature. I believe that everyone can be bodhisattvas of the earth.

These beliefs, if you like, to me are facts. I can't make them beliefs because that's like trying to make two and two equaling five, to me, when I know it is four. Even more so, that's like telling me to believe two and two is four when I can throw out belief because I know it equals four.

Same as Buddhism and spiritualism. I know these teachings are fact.

I know jesus is in the Eucharist. I know baptism washes people's sins away. These two sacraments I know exist and experience. I don't just believe it, I know.

I'm asking two questions....

1. Do you know Bahaullah is predicted by other religions

2. Can you view it as a fact that other people disagree with you (and their Dharma and scripture), why, and are interested in learning how they see things as facts while yours interpretations?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009 and @loverofhumanity

I rather you take a week and comment on main points then take a day and comment on first or last paragraph. Take your time.

 

[Vinayaka]

The Baha'is being the newest of the Abrahamic faiths, we cop a lot of the backlash. As the new Abrahamic Faith increasingly engaging in every aspect of the life of our communities, one of the first reactions for many is "What's really changed?" or "Its just more of the same".

Yes, that is definitely how I see it. More of the same. But I'm an outsider to the Abrahamic faiths. A prophet. Infallibility. Proselytizing. Dualism. God in the sky. Good works, with strings. These are all in common, with the possible exception of Judaism.

I'm afraid you've yet to convince me Bahai is anything new.

 

[loverofhumanity]

@adrian009 and @loverofhumanity

I rather you take a week and comment on main points then take a day and comment on first or last paragraph. Take your time.

I'm commenting on all questions asked. I'm trying as best I can. I'll try harder then. Apologies for what I failed to address.