How are these Great Beings explained?

[loverofhumanity]

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?

What do you mean by 'fact'. I understand it means 'truth'.

To me the Buddha is truth, the Dhamapadda is truth. I don't just believe it but know it is truth.

Q1 Yes, I know Baha'u'llah is predicted in other religions

Q2 I didn't understand your wording. Could you kindly rephrase it. Thanks

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Investigations shows that even from the earliest days of the Baha'i Faith we have been involved in a process of spiritual and social transformation,

Have you, though? Outside of it's originating nation, can it be shown that Baha'i has had direct, changing influence on governments around the world?

Eventually, along with thousands of other early Babi's Tahirih was cruelly put to death.

As cruel as this may sound; what was her influence, then? Outside of Baha'i, that is.

However the Baha'is despite their small number have always been at the cutting edge of social change

Unless it's women in leadership roles. Speaking for god, and such.

However the Baha'i Faith is a grassroots community where most of the decision making happens at a local level by individuals, groups, and elected assemblies.

Clearly not, elsewise the writings of your various prophets would hold no clout. You would have no leadership structure - even one that rotates out every three months. You the people would decide doctrine and dogma, and speak for god. Yet you don't.

There is complete equality of men and women in every sense within our communities,

Unless it comes to education, aye? I'd be willing to bet a few other things, as well.

The purpose of making education of girls a priority is simply elevating motherhood and their role as first educators of children

And the father has no role in this--the upbringing and educating of his children? How very unfair to fathers.

As for serving in the military, women are exempt, not barred.

Which is a pretty word for barred, I think. Have there been any women Baha'i soldiers? Why should a woman not learn to fight and defend her home and family? Your Baha's opinion on women - that they have tender hearts and cannot endure war - is very sexist. Women face horrors just as much as men, and to shelter them from that, and pretty it up with chivalry and innocence, is quite a disservice to them.

There has been a vital role for stories to be passed down through generations as you say that is central to culture. However the problem is when we can no longer distinguish between what is myth and fact. Take the resurrection of Christ for example. This was a useful myth to promote an understanding or belief in an afterlife.

How? People believed in and understood the afterlife just fine until the crucifixion myth. No, rather what that myth establishes is the Christian notion of salvation through divine self-sacrifice, and the power of their god.

The myths of the high women you spoke of

I made no mention of myths of women; you assumed that my sources were myth. At most they are legend, which is essentially embellished history. The women that I mentioned are as established in history as the prophets that you list. And with several of them being queens and rulers of their own right, to say there was "total male domination" in their cultures is not accurate.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

How can I know what is true and what is false about Buddha? Anything the Buddha says is true. Nothing the Buddha says is false.

Yes there are many truths but one truth cannot contradict another truth.

Excellent point. Carlita you are brilliant. I love your questions and I thank you so much for asking them.

We could all have differing interpretations and we could all be right. Each sutta might have seventy meanings. As the Buddha's Teachings are universal and meant for all people, a person from a different background might know some of the other meanings that a Buddhist won't. Unless you're saying the Buddha did not come for other cultures?

It's true truth is one and truth is many. All truths are really part of one truth just like all the rays are from the one sun. There are not two or three suns only one but it's rays are many.

Think about this passage from the famous Persian mystic Rumi.

The truth was a mirror in the hands of God. It fell, and broke into pieces. Everybody took a piece of it, and they looked at it and thought they had the truth.” Rumi

We each have a piece of the truth from the mirror of God. But we think there are many truths yet those who know it came from the mirror of God which fell and broke into pieces, see it all as belonging to the one truth.

Now here is the solution. Only when those broken pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle does the picture become clear.

Pieces that did not come from the broken mirror of God, no matter how one tries, will not put the mirror together.

Only the 'original broken pieces' of the mirror can do that. Only the pure, original and unadulterated teachings can make the picture clear.

But when we add other things to it the picture remains confusing.

Each religion has a piece of the truth and until they combine it with the pieces of the other religions, the picture will not be clear.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I don't think over simplistic but more complex. For instance we are told that every knowledge has seventy meanings so we dive in and explore the many possible meanings not just the one commonly held which often times is just barebones without any real reflection or contemplation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I'll give you an example of how texts can be reconciled through taking them out of the box they're in.

Christians say Christ was crucified right?

The Quran says Christ was not crucified. Major difference. Major contradiction? No. Not at all if seen from another angle.

This is how these seemingly outward contradictions have been reconciled in our religion.

"The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Quranic version is that the spirit of Christ was not crucified. There is no conflict between the two." Shoghi Effendi.

One truth cannot contradict another truth. Just because they seem to contradict only means we haven't looked deep enough to find the resolution to the conflict.

 

[Vinayaka]

One truth cannot contradict another truth. Just because they seem to contradict only means we haven't looked deep enough to find the resolution to the conflict.

Simply not true. Sorry.
Christians claim Christ is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. (Salvation meaning resurrection and heaven) This is Christian 'truth'.
Muslims say Christ is there, but not absolutely necessary. This is Islamic 'truth'.
Hindus vary, but mostly an acknowledgment of maybe Christ existing, certainly not necessary. No salvation concept, but moksha. This is Hindu 'truth'.

If we replace the word 'truth' with belief, it is at least believable. The resolution to the conflict is acknowledging and tolerating diversity with love. An apple is always different than an orange. Enjoy orange juice at breakfast, and apple juice at lunch. Don't mix them together, that spoils both of them.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think over simplistic but more complex. For instance we are told that every knowledge has seventy meanings so we dive in and explore the many possible meanings not just the one commonly held which often times is just barebones without any real reflection or contemplation.

But you still can't believe in them all. That's what I meant by overly simplistic. When someone says they've been to Australia, does it mean they've seen all parts of Australia? When someone says, 'Yeah, I read that book' it doesn't mean they understood it.

 

[Vinayaka]

What do you mean by 'fact'. I understand it means 'truth'.

To me the Buddha is truth, the Dhamapadda is truth. I don't just believe it but know it is truth.

Q1 Yes, I know Baha'u'llah is predicted in other religions

Q2 I didn't understand your wording. Could you kindly rephrase it. Thanks

I'll quote Carlita ... "Truth is not in a box."

 

[loverofhumanity]

Simply not true. Sorry.
Christians claim Christ is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. (Salvation meaning resurrection and heaven) This is Christian 'truth'.
Muslims say Christ is there, but not absolutely necessary. This is Islamic 'truth'.
Hindus vary, but mostly an acknowledgment of maybe Christ existing, certainly not necessary. No salvation concept, but moksha. This is Hindu 'truth'.

If we replace the word 'truth' with belief, it is at least believable. The resolution to the conflict is acknowledging and tolerating diversity with love. An apple is always different than an orange. Enjoy orange juice at breakfast, and apple juice at lunch. Don't mix them together, that spoils both of them.

It is interesting you should mention these things.

Baha'u'llah teaches that we are only truly free when we are free from the kingdom of names.

For instance, in His Book of Certitude He claims that all the Manifestations are one and the same and quotes where Muhammad said 'I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus, I am all the Prophets'

These attachments to names are tests. While we are attached to them are can have no true freedom.

When we look past the Kingdom of names we can see oneness more easily.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'll quote Carlita ... "Truth is not in a box."

Of course it isn't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

@adrian009

No. I didn't mean it to sound rude. I just wanted you guys to get the general gist of what I'm saying, and even though I know you (humanity) and adrian (probably more) understand what I'm saying, I'm not really getting a how or interest in more about how I see things. It's more quoting Bahaullah, saying "we believe this...", literally (humanity) dodging a question that would be the only thing on a post. I don't know if you do that intentionally since it's only one or two sentences or not. It's more than "learning from each other's beliefs." If that's the case, you guys will really talk more about what we believe rather than what you believe. It's more, giving this is in a debate thread, challenging each other to "think outside of the box". Let us stop believing what we believe for a bit and look in the eyes of another. I mean, I'm not Hindu but I understand why a Hindu would be offended by what you both are saying.

Adrian, you asked me about how one is "offended" by cultural appropriation. Can't remember if you commented on my answer, but this is an example:

Help Stop the Exploitation of Indian Ceremonies and Culture

As you guys may know, Native Americans became minorities and are still being colonized and tucked away. Their traditions are stolen or just driven out entirely by Christianity or mixed with it. It's sad.

Here is a excerpt from that site.

""Indians' continue to be very popular these days. Many believe they are "honoring" Indians by naming sports teams, using Indian mascots, and hawking items, such as medicine wheels, headdresses, Kachina dolls, etc." ...
What is usually missing is an understanding of the grave insult and injury these activities inflict on Indian peoples. Wendy Rose, a Hopi writer and poet, comments that "whiteshamanism is neither ‘okay,’ ‘harmless,’ nor ‘irrelevant,’ no more than any other form of racist, colonialist behavior..." Some people may participate simply as a result of ignorance, a situation which can be corrected by education. However, most of those who profit from these practices refuse to acknowledge their own racism, while trying to convince their Indian or non-Indian critics that they (the critics) don’t understand their good intentions. Profiteers also argue that they have the right to use any material from any culture they so choose! This, of course, is only further proof that they have little respect for Indians as real human beings, with feelings and opinions that matter."

People are literally taking other people's cultures, their practices, their beliefs and mix and matching them and using them outside the context to which they come from and practiced.

When you say Krishna prophesied Bahaullah and come from the same god, that "statement in an of itself" is cultural appropriation. Regardless if it's your belief and you think it's right, the very fact the belief itself is doing this makes Bahai believe more of a suttle colonized faith. If it were not, Krishna would remain a god (who cannot be a incarnation of someone else's god) in his or her own right, not be appropriated nor stated in your belief system, and respected for the Hindu and Hindu scripture that says otherwise. Just because you believe it and not consider beliefs and facts the same, the point is, it's in your religion, and it does the same as every other belief that culturally appropriates. As a minority seeing this bothers me greatly.

Loveofhumanity

You equated yourself, if I can remember, of that of a Hindu. From what I remember you said, paragraphing, because you believe what Hinduis believe, you are Hindu too.

Seeking Native American Spirituality? Read this first!

Except:

If you're trying to learn about American Indian religion because you want to become a part of it, though, you not only face that problem, but another, much deeper one as well: American Indian spirituality is not evangelistic. It is private and entirely cultural. You cannot convert to 'Native American' any more than you can convert to African-American or Korean or any other cultural identity you would need to be raised in to understand. (In fact, many Indians--myself included--are Christians in addition to our traditional tribal beliefs, just like many African-American and Korean people are Christian in addition to having an ethnicity of their own.) The only way to 'join' a Native American spiritual tradition is to become a member of the cultural group, and it's impossible to do that over the Internet. No one who truly believed in American Indian spirituality would ever offer to tutor total strangers in religious matters online, much less charge anyone money for such a thing. So, by definition, the people who make these offers are those who either don't really believe in Native American spirituality, or don't know very much about it. Is that really who you want to be listening to?

You can no more be Hindu than a Christian and then myself. You literally have to practice the culture, traditions, and as a result adopt the language which is part of these things to even consider calling yourself Hindu. Even more so, I'm guessing Hinduism is not just a solitary religion as in they don't ask each other's spirituality since it's between them and god, but they do come together during festivals, puja, and things of that nature. If you are Hindu, why not go to these things and worship? Become Hindu.

Then you'll understand their belief and grow in your practice by learning more about their TLC (both pun and not pun) and incorporated into your practice. No more Bahaullah. No more Christ. No more Muhammad.

Adrian

I'ma do it this way. Scripture doesn't predict the coming of Bahaullah. I've read scripture and in no way does it predict the coming of anyone other than christ himself. Christ wasn't the peace-maker of "his day" but in scripture, he was the peace-maker even after his death, when his apostles took the message on in Acts and spread it around neighboring lands. His spirit still exists today in people (and in yourself as a christian) so he is always a peace-maker.

Another thing, if you are incorporating Muhammad, Krishna, Zoraster in your practice as a Bahai/Christian there are some problems.

The cultural appropriation I mentioned above.

The lack of unity each religion has with each other. They all have to unite and agree regardless of their differing beliefs. Since they do not, Bahai can't be in unity with disunity regardless if they look at the similarities rather than the differences.

Even once you understand two, you need to understand the culture and traditions.

Even if you understand the traditions and culture and the other accepts you, you are still not that culture.

So I can't change your belief. I can just say this is what you're doing. Whether you individual see it this way is the same as Christians having multiple worldviews but the same belief (so you are not different). But I'm referring to your belief system instead.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But you still can't believe in them all. That's what I meant by overly simplistic. When someone says they've been to Australia, does it mean they've seen all parts of Australia? When someone says, 'Yeah, I read that book' it doesn't mean they understood it.

Very good question.

But I can say I have have come to know the spirit of Australia.

I do not have to become a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Jew to know the 'spirit' of these Faiths as that same spirit is in my own Faith.

The sun that I see in the sky is the same sun all the people of the world see. And the warmth and light I receive from that one sun is the same light and heat that all the peoples of the world receive.

I can know the spirit of all religions and what it is to be human.

So I can accept all people and the spirit of all Faiths as I am both human and spiritual as you all are and all religions are.

 

[Vinayaka]

When we look past the Kingdom of names we can see oneness more easily.

Maybe you can. I don't. You keep changing the topic, avoiding the questions. But I've come to expect it.
You honestly can't see the differences?

I can say, "If you got past your oneness, you could see the differences."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What do you mean by 'fact'. I understand it means 'truth'.

To me the Buddha is truth, the Dhamapadda is truth. I don't just believe it but know it is truth.

Q1 Yes, I know Baha'u'llah is predicted in other religions

Q2 I didn't understand your wording. Could you kindly rephrase it. Thanks

Fact meaning I know The Buddha's words are true (not as in truth to separate the two) just as I know two and two is four.

It's not a metaphor. I don't accept parts. I don't accept it just in concept. Nor do I accept it just or it's goals and how it relates to me. I accept it because I know it's true/fact regardless if I practice it or not.

Same as mathematics. I know two and two is four even if I don't become a mathematician.

1. What do you mean by truth?

If something is true/fact, then that's what it is. It doesn't need us to believe in it to be true. How does truth factor into this?

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not have to become a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Jew to know the 'spirit' of these Faiths as that same spirit is in my own Faith.

Yes you do. You have repeatedly convinced me that you don't see the spirit of Hinduism. For one, you keep adding Baha'u'llah to the equation. That's not part of Hinduism. Yes you can SAY you get stuff, but do you really? Saying 'I believe' is not the same as believing. I can say I'm the president of the United States. Doesn't mean I am.

This is like some man saying they understand what its like to be a woman. They don't ... obviously.

I think some Bahais just keep saying stuff, with no real background in it. The other day I described the deepest realisation in Hinduism (I believe in mankind, I'm a Hindu) and you nonchalantly replied that you'd done that, when all of your words indicate otherwise.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course it isn't.

There you go, contradicting yourself again. The box that you have put 'truth' in is called 'Oneness'. So which is it, oneness, or not oneness?

 

[loverofhumanity]

@adrian009

No. I didn't mean it to sound rude. I just wanted you guys to get the general gist of what I'm saying, and even though I know you (humanity) and adrian (probably more) understand what I'm saying, I'm not really getting a how or interest in more about how I see things. It's more quoting Bahaullah, saying "we believe this...", literally (humanity) dodging a question that would be the only thing on a post. I don't know if you do that intentionally since it's only one or two sentences or not. It's more than "learning from each other's beliefs." If that's the case, you guys will really talk more about what we believe rather than what you believe. It's more, giving this is in a debate thread, challenging each other to "think outside of the box". Let us stop believing what we believe for a bit and look in the eyes of another. I mean, I'm not Hindu but I understand why a Hindu would be offended by what you both are saying.

Adrian, you asked me about how one is "offended" by cultural appropriation. Can't remember if you commented on my answer, but this is an example:

Help Stop the Exploitation of Indian Ceremonies and Culture

As you guys may know, Native Americans became minorities and are still being colonized and tucked away. Their traditions are stolen or just driven out entirely by Christianity or mixed with it. It's sad.

Here is a excerpt from that site.


People are literally taking other people's cultures, their practices, their beliefs and mix and matching them and using them outside the context to which they come from and practiced.

When you say Krishna prophesied Bahaullah and come from the same god, that "statement in an of itself" is cultural appropriation. Regardless if it's your belief and you think it's right, the very fact the belief itself is doing this makes Bahai believe more of a suttle colonized faith. If it were not, Krishna would remain a god (who cannot be a incarnation of someone else's god) in his or her own right, not be appropriated nor stated in your belief system, and respected for the Hindu and Hindu scripture that says otherwise. Just because you believe it and not consider beliefs and facts the same, the point is, it's in your religion, and it does the same as every other belief that culturally appropriates. As a minority seeing this bothers me greatly.

Loveofhumanity

You equated yourself, if I can remember, of that of a Hindu. From what I remember you said, paragraphing, because you believe what Hinduis believe, you are Hindu too.

Seeking Native American Spirituality? Read this first!

Except:



You can no more be Hindu than a Christian and then myself. You literally have to practice the culture, traditions, and as a result adopt the language which is part of these things to even consider calling yourself Hindu. Even more so, I'm guessing Hinduism is not just a solitary religion as in they don't ask each other's spirituality since it's between them and god, but they do come together during festivals, puja, and things of that nature. If you are Hindu, why not go to these things and worship? Become Hindu.

Then you'll understand their belief and grow in your practice by learning more about their TLC (both pun and not pun) and incorporated into your practice. No more Bahaullah. No more Christ. No more Muhammad.

Adrian

I'ma do it this way. Scripture doesn't predict the coming of Bahaullah. I've read scripture and in no way does it predict the coming of anyone other than christ himself. Christ wasn't the peace-maker of "his day" but in scripture, he was the peace-maker even after his death, when his apostles took the message on in Acts and spread it around neighboring lands. His spirit still exists today in people (and in yourself as a christian) so he is always a peace-maker.

Another thing, if you are incorporating Muhammad, Krishna, Zoraster in your practice as a Bahai/Christian there are some problems.

The cultural appropriation I mentioned above.

The lack of unity each religion has with each other. They all have to unite and agree regardless of their differing beliefs. Since they do not, Bahai can't be in unity with disunity regardless if they look at the similarities rather than the differences.

Even once you understand two, you need to understand the culture and traditions.

Even if you understand the traditions and culture and the other accepts you, you are still not that culture.

So I can't change your belief. I can just say this is what you're doing. Whether you individual see it this way is the same as Christians having multiple worldviews but the same belief (so you are not different). But I'm referring to your belief system instead.

First Carlita, you are a brilliant debater and I marvel at your patience and perseverance.

Ok then I'm happy for you to tell us more of how you see things. Unless you ask a question I'm happy to try and understand and listen to what you would like to say.

So I won't add anymore comments unless you ask questions ok?

But I would like to know what is your view on unity or oneness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How can I know what is true and what is false about Buddha? Anything the Buddha says is true. Nothing the Buddha says is false.

If that be the case, you would not believe in god.

Yes there are many truths but one truth cannot contradict another truth.

That's why you have to change your perspective because you are not isolating these truths but trying to make them like puzzle pieces into one puzzle when each puzzle peace is in it's own puzzle.

Even if you accept each puzzle piece look different, putting them in the same puzzle won't work out.

Change your perspective.

Excellent point. Carlita you are brilliant. I love your questions and I thank you so much for asking them.

You're welcome

We could all have differing interpretations and we could all be right. Each sutta might have seventy meanings. As the Buddha's Teachings are universal and meant for all people, a person from a different background might know some of the other meanings that a Buddhist won't. Unless you're saying the Buddha did not come for other cultures?

Actually, The Buddha taught monks, disciples, and bodhisattvas. In Theravada, he was talking about monk discipline rules (like having their bed I think six inches high, what food to eat, and so forth). He told his disciples they possess different things like one compassion. He tells them their names mean different things and gives them the title to which Buddhist look to them to "retrieve" for lack of better words. He taught Bodhisattvas so they can continue his teachings, read, write, and recite, after his passing.

He taught it to people who wish to be awakened by The Dharma. Those who do not, he said not to teach them (kind of like pearls among swine thing) because they will fall on deaf ears.

It's true truth is one and truth is many. All truths are really part of one truth just like all the rays are from the one sun. There are not two or three suns only one but it's rays are many.

There is only one sun. Just because you see different raws, doesn't mean they are different than each other. It's one sun, rays and all. What you're saying, instead, is the moon is the same as the sun because they are both in the universe. And even if you accept the moon and sun are different, you still try to put them together to make it unified rather than knowing these are different "things" and made up of different characteristics to make one completely different than the other.

The truth was a mirror in the hands of God. It fell, and broke into pieces. Everybody took a piece of it, and they looked at it and thought they had the truth.” Rumi

I quote

Enjoy orange juice at breakfast, and apple juice at lunch. Don't mix them together, that spoils both of them.

Everyone has their own orange juice and apple juice. Don't put it together and say everyone can take a class (or does). Everyone else acknowledges that apples and oranges are different. Even UU respects differences and says that each person can believe his or her own beliefs and the unification is not by a founder but by shared communion of peace and unity among diversity.

You're placing god and a founder in this. This automatically takes you out of the game.

We each have a piece of the truth from the mirror of God. But we think there are many truths yet those who know it came from the mirror of God which fell and broke into pieces, see it all as belonging to the one truth.

Hmm. This is an example of my last sentence. Weird.

No, truth is not a mirror from god. If you know Zen, Zen doesn't define truth. It's "empty", it has no name. No god. No Buddha. No name.

That's why we have many truths (or things we hold as true/fact) and because they are diverse, they will contradict each other. That does not mean they are not true/fact. Just as I'm not Hindu, Muslim, or Christian, so I don't see these religions as facts but that's okay because I don't put their religion (spirit or not) into my faith just because I share goals and one humanity with them. I feel that is total disrespect, one because I am not practicing with them, and two, it's personal bias because I am a minority, and three I am not part of their traditions, culture, and language.

But unlike many religions outside Eastern ones, I don't discredit other people what they hold true just because they contradict each other. That's silly. Respect goes beyond acceptance and learning differences.

Now here is the solution. Only when those broken pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle does the picture become clear.

Many pieces. There are thousands of puzzles. Say they are all fractured. That doesn't mean all pieces go to one puzzle. Solve each puzzle separately. It's not saying these are not all puzzles since puzzles do have something in common to be called a puzzle. It just means try not to fit a circle where a square should be all because it's a puzzle piece just like the rest.

Pieces that did not come from the broken mirror of God, no matter how one tries, will not put the mirror together.

Another statement that does not bring unity. You're saying because other pieces are disjointed, they cannot be put together. Well, if you are making them a part of your puzzle, of course not. If you respect them and let them solve their own puzzle, that's respect. In my view, it has nothing to do with god. In Christian view, it has to do with Jesus. In Muslim and Jewish view it is about the creator. In Hindu there are many things that put their puzzle together. It may contradict to you but you are not Hindu. So....

Only the 'original broken pieces' of the mirror can do that. Only the pure, original and unadulterated teachings can make the picture clear.

Again, this is the one-truth talk. Look from anther perspective. Differences are not aspects of one whole, they are distinct as wholes in themselves.

Each religion has a piece of the truth and until they combine it with the pieces of the other religions, the picture will not be clear.

Again, you are making thousands of pieces in the world into one puzzle when each respect religion has their own puzzle. Even if their pieces are disjointed to you, their pieces belong to their puzzle not yours.

Will you have missing pieces if you finally accept that other people have their own puzzle?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes you do. You have repeatedly convinced me that you don't see the spirit of Hinduism. For one, you keep adding Baha'u'llah to the equation. That's not part of Hinduism. Yes you can SAY you get stuff, but do you really? Saying 'I believe' is not the same as believing. I can say I'm the president of the United States. Doesn't mean I am.

This is like some man saying they understand what its like to be a woman. They don't ... obviously.

I think some Bahais just keep saying stuff, with no real background in it. The other day I described the deepest realisation in Hinduism (I believe in mankind, I'm a Hindu) and you nonchalantly replied that you'd done that, when all of your words indicate otherwise.

Spiritual knowledge is completely different to human learning. A person who can't count the number of days in a week may have a high spiritual station.

Maybe there's deep spiritual truth behind what I say or maybe you're right and it's just all rubbish. That's for you to decide which I think you already have.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

First Carlita, you are a brilliant debater and I marvel at your patience and perseverance.

Ok then I'm happy for you to tell us more of how you see things. Unless you ask a question I'm happy to try and understand and listen to what you would like to say.

So I won't add anymore comments unless you ask questions ok?

But I would like to know what is your view on unity or oneness.

I know what you believe, though. So, that's odd. How would I ask you a question so you can learn more about what I believe? If anything, you'd ask questions about what I post in my other posts and get in deeper rather than tell me what you believe. I can only reply to your posts and I reply practically the same because there is nothing really new. So maybe learn about how I see things.

But it's not about my asking you questions (that's weird). You have to be interested and ask questions about me and the posts I write. If you don't understand a concept I said, ask about it. I've never said "I believe this is true..." as a rebuttle for your posts. I've always used what you said and replied to the concept or point of what you're trying to make.

It has to work both ways to be a productive debate.