How are these Great Beings explained?

[loverofhumanity]

Zen meditate but when I practiced it talked against any special feeling. That's how one sees life as it is when one is not attach to "something special." Not attached to form. Not labeling it. No it. Nothing.

Hard to understand or even believe but it exists. It's not a universal truth. It's a belief that a lot of people have but universal truth means it's a fact or truth for all people. It is not.

The purpose then is to achieve a state of 'nothingness' which Baha'u'llah describes as one of the highest spiritual states one can attain. It's still very much a spiritual state.

The religions included in our beliefs all have this mystical worship.

 

[Vinayaka]

The religions included in our beliefs all have this mystical worship.

No they don't.

A much more accurate statement would have been .... There are mystical sects in all religions Bahais include in their pantheon.

In Christianity, for example, most of the 30 000 sects are non-mystical. In Hinduism its higher than that, but most certainly not all Hindus are mystical at all. So I think your statement is slightly misleading. Not just that, but as with a lot of things, the terms 'mystic', and 'mysticism' are just general terms that can describe a whole lot of experiences and states of consciousness. It can even be totally intellectualised.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The purpose then is to achieve a state of 'nothingness' which Baha'u'llah describes as one of the highest spiritual states one can attain. It's still very much a spiritual state.

The religions included in our beliefs all have this mystical worship.

You're changing the object of your goal. Nothingness is not a mystical feeling. It's not an absence of feeling. It's not unique. It's not special. It's not from god. It's literally nothing.

Also, in your first posts commenting on Buddhism, you related your views with Theravada. Zen is Mahayana. Also, there is no Maitreya in Zen. So, you're connection is not logical based on previous information you posted.

I was using Zen as an example that some religions don't have mystical feelings. Those that you say that do, it is not at all the same as yours. Unless you have their TLC, you do not have the same mystical feeling as theirs regardless the names you and others choose to use.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh dear! The Muhammad thing is just rubbish - you need to read up on the history. The Battle of Badr was not self-defense at all. The whole situation arose after 13 years of personal attacks by Muslims on the polytheist Arabs in Mecca which brought the Muslim trouble causers into conflict with their own tribesmen and forced them to move out to Medina. From there, the Prophet and his men launched raids on caravans going to Medina and on one such occasion, fearing another unprovoked attack on a caravan bringing goods and money from Syria to Mecca, the Meccans sent out a small force to protect their property. The Muslims confronted them and won a famous victory - followed, according to al-Bukhari, by Muhammad taunting the corpses on the battlefield. The Surah you quoted from was 'revealed' to Muhammad on the eve of the Battle of Badr - so the 'self-defense' thing was not what you (and modern Islam) often pretend it to be - it was an instruction to fight if they (Muslims) were impeded in their attempts to hijack the caravans of their tribesmen on the road to Mecca and plunder their property. Not all the Muslims agreed to take part in this unjustified violence and they were duly chastised - in the other verses I quoted previously.

If Adam was really the first man and Moses chronology is correct, the Krishna must have existed before the creation of mankind - which is fine for a God - doesn't work quite so well for a Manifestation whose purpose is to guide mankind.

The plagues are nothing to with the military conquest of Canaan or the God-sanctioned genocide of the Midianites - I have no idea why you are bringing up the plagues.

To be perfectly honest, you seem to be very confused about the lives and the teachings of all three - Krishna, Moses and Muhammad.

This is how we see it. It was a war forced on Muslims against their wishes.

" On the contrary, Muḥammad’s military expeditions were always defensive in nature. The clear proof is this: For thirteen years both He and His companions endured in Mecca the most intense persecutions and were the constant target of the darts of hatred. Some of His companions were killed and their possessions pillaged; others forsook their native country and fled to foreign lands. Muḥammad Himself was subjected to the severest persecutions and was obliged, when His enemies resolved to kill Him, to flee Mecca in the middle of the night and emigrate to Medina. Yet even then His enemies did not relent, but pursued the Muslims all the way to Medina and to Abyssi”

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

Again, with regards to Krishna, the battles are referring more to the inner self and detachment than about an actual war.

Things that happened thousands of years ago we can only speculate but those who have a negative attitude towards religion and God will always put a negative spin on these things to try and degrade religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No they don't.

A much more accurate statement would have been .... There are mystical sects in all religions Bahais include in their pantheon.

In Christianity, for example, most of the 30 000 sects are non-mystical. In Hinduism its higher than that, but most certainly not all Hindus are mystical at all. So I think your statement is slightly misleading. Not just that, but as with a lot of things, the terms 'mystic', and 'mysticism' are just general terms that can describe a whole lot of experiences and states of consciousness. It can even be totally intellectualised.

I use that term to describe something that really is an inner consciousness or state that does exist in all religions and they all try and reach within themselves by meditating and prayer.

It's common to every religion. Worship and meditation are mystical whether you want to call them intellectual or spiritual.

They are intangible realities.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He points the pathway to it. We then have to walk that path.

If you have a mystical feeling and it is from god (right?) why do you need prophets?

 

[Vinayaka]

I use that term to describe something that really is an inner consciousness or state that does exist in all religions and they all try and reach within themselves by meditating and prayer.

It's common to every religion. Worship and meditation are mystical whether you want to call them intellectual or spiritual.

They are intangible realities.

Some adherents of each religion do. But if these so called mystical experiences are indescribable, then there is no way of knowing whether or not they are the same. It is just some simplistic platitude to state that they are. It's a plain glossing over of differences. It works for Bahai, but it doesn't work for me. I see things as far more complex in reality. Even my worship is very different than yours. How would you know what I get out of it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I use that term to describe something that really is an inner consciousness or state that does exist in all religions and they all try and reach within themselves by meditating and prayer.

It's common to every religion. Worship and meditation are mystical whether you want to call them intellectual or spiritual.

They are intangible realities.

Why would you believe every religion has it when many religious tell you they do not?

Are they lying?

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're changing the object of your goal. Nothingness is not a mystical feeling. It's not an absence of feeling. It's not unique. It's not special. It's not from god. It's literally nothing.

Also, in your first posts commenting on Buddhism, you related your views with Theravada. Zen is Mahayana. Also, there is no Maitreya in Zen. So, you're connection is not logical based on previous information you posted.

I was using Zen as an example that some religions don't have mystical feelings. Those that you say that do, it is not at all the same as yours. Unless you have their TLC, you do not have the same mystical feeling as theirs regardless the names you and others choose to use.

You can go to all the churches, mosques , synagogues etc and you will find worship or self realisation or self annihilation whatever you want to name it or call it is one thing all religions have in common.

I understand you don't believe in common foundation of religions
but there are the inner things in common and I don't believe this can be denied and it is more clutching at straws to try and deny this fact that the reality on the ground.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Some adherents of each religion do. But if these so called mystical experiences are indescribable, then there is no way of knowing whether or not they are the same. It is just some simplistic platitude to state that they are. It's a plain glossing over of differences. It works for Bahai, but it doesn't work for me. I see things as far more complex in reality. Even my worship is very different than yours. How would you know what I get out of it?

It's worship all the same. That's my point. Define worship. It is a subjective experience that every religionist experiences and an experience we have in common. We may know it by a different name or express it differently but worship is worship.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can go to all the churches, mosques , synagogues etc and you will find worship or self realisation or self annihilation whatever you want to name it or call it is one thing all religions have in common.

I understand you don't believe in common foundation of religions
but there are the inner things in common and I don't believe this can be denied and it is more clutching at straws to try and deny this fact that the reality on the ground.

I practiced these religions so I know for a fact that they do not have a common foundation. We can believe anything we want and name it anything we want but

all beliefs are shape by their traditions, language, and culture. (Their TLC are expressions of their beliefs and are embedded in their beliefs)

This is a huge reason among others why your mystical experience is not the same as a Hindu nor a Christian. I know that's hard for you to understand but you are making claims about other religions. So when a person of that religion corrects you, you go back to "this is what we believe..." but your beliefs (in my opinion) should be based on facts. If not, you can believe anything as long as they help you in your spiritual growth.

If you call it a fact (something that is true) it has to agree with the people and scriptures of the actual religion you are talking about.

How is that hard to understand?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No they don't.

A much more accurate statement would have been .... There are mystical sects in all religions Bahais include in their pantheon.

In Christianity, for example, most of the 30 000 sects are non-mystical. In Hinduism its higher than that, but most certainly not all Hindus are mystical at all. So I think your statement is slightly misleading. Not just that, but as with a lot of things, the terms 'mystic', and 'mysticism' are just general terms that can describe a whole lot of experiences and states of consciousness. It can even be totally intellectualised.

Yes that's more accurate a statement to say that all religions we include in our belief have that mystical element.

You're brilliant!

 

[Vinayaka]

It's worship all the same. That's my point. Define worship. It is a subjective experience that every religionist experiences and an experience we have in common. We may know it by a different name or express it differently but worship is worship.

I agree.

You can go to all the churches, mosques , synagogues etc and you will find worship or self realisation or self annihilation whatever you want to name it or call it is one thing all religions have in common.

Have you ever even been to a Hindu temple? Not the place to see self-realisation that is for sure. Self annihihilation and self-realisation are two very different things.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes that's more accurate a statement to say that all religions we include in our belief have that mystical element.

You're brilliant!

It still excludes the non-mystical faiths though. How do Bahai explain that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's worship all the same. That's my point. Define worship. It is a subjective experience that every religionist experiences and an experience we have in common. We may know it by a different name or express it differently but worship is worship.

Example. They all have, we will call it mystical, experiences. Each experience is shaped by their TLC. As a result, they do not have a common foundation.

1. Catholicism

The core foundation of The Church is Jesus Christ.
The core foundation of the body of Christ is the Catholic Church
The core foundation of belief and living in Christ are the sacraments of Christ
The salvation you get from Christ comes from the Eucharist.

These are Catholic foundations. They are expressions embedded in their beliefs and scripture and cannot at all be separated from each other.

2. Buddhism

Let's take Nichiren Buddhism. It's a Ten Tai Mahayana sect that believe in devoting their worship and practice to a inscribed summary of The Buddha's Dharma.

The belief is that everyone is in a cycle of cause and affect/rebirth (in Japanese, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo -Diamoku-) This is The Buddha's main teaching. By chanting and personalizing this teaching from what Nichiren Buddhist get from the scroll they chant to enlightens them to this fact of Daimoku or The Buddha's primary teaching (according to Nichiren Shonin) The Lotus Sutra.

Their foundations are

1. The Gohonzon

2. Chanting Diamoku

3. Living the Dharma of the Lotus Sutra.

They are not similiar nor the same foundation as Catholicism. For one, Nichiren Buddhist don't believe in god nor Christ. Christ is the foundation of all Christian faiths. Second, The Gohonzon is the object of worship. To Catholics, that is idolism. Third, they live the Dharma. Catholics live the teachings of Christ and The Church.

Their expressions are embedded in their beliefs. Their foundations are severely different.

3. Hinduism (forgive me @Vinayaka for my rudimentary knowledge )

I went to a Hindu temple last year. Always wanted to go for years and finally went. I went inside after taking off my shoes. I entered in the middle of Puja, so I sat to the side not knowing a word of the language they spoke. After they finished, I introduced myself. They gave me a red yarn for protection of one of the goddesses. I can't remember which goddesses they were worshiping that holiday. They gave me so many fruits I could barely hold all of it in my hands.

I went to the different statues and paid my respects. The Catholic Church is high on respecting private devotion and reflection to various saints and I found that similar to Hindu respects and customs in the temple. So, looking around, I asked questions. They helped me the best they could in English.

And so on and so forth.

If you told them that Puja, the welcoming of visitors, taking off shoes (which we do in Buddhism), giving fruits, and praying to gods and goddesses are just expressions separate from their beliefs, that is a huge disrespect and disgrading of who they are as Hinduis and how they worship.

It is not the same foundation as Catholicism.

I saw a Buddha statue there since they have Buddhist festivals in the temple. But they had no Christ statues. No Eucharist. No Quran. Actually, no Vidas, if I can recall. It was all about practice and devotion. Very welcoming.

Without these things above, they do not have a common foundation with Catholicism and Buddhism. The Buddha dislike Hinduis view of life because they incorporate gods with whom he, in various suttas, argued with to prove that their way of enlightenment isn't the right way.

If Bahai thing these religions have the same founders and the religious themselves know they don't, this is your belief but it is not a fact. It is false. Whether you believe it is or not is not the point.

If you want to have peace and unity among other faiths, you have to respect each faith for their differing foundations. If not, do not seek peace and unity among diversity. Nothing wrong with charity to others. Just make sure when you have founders of other faiths in your religion, the religion and religious agree to your use or just don't use them at all.

Catholics do well without Hindu gods. They have charities and things of that nature. As do Buddhists and as do Hindu. They know peace does not need to have other people's faiths within their own. There are boundaries.

Unfortunately Catholics have soiled people's boundaries by death. Bahai is different in their delivery but the concept is the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@loverofhumanity take your time

 

[Vinayaka]

You can go to all the churches, mosques , synagogues etc and you will find worship or self realisation or self annihilation whatever you want to name it or call it is one thing all religions have in common.

I understand you don't believe in common foundation of religions
but there are the inner things in common and I don't believe this can be denied and it is more clutching at straws to try and deny this fact that the reality on the ground.

Please explain what the inner things in common are. Besides some ethics, And certainly not all) and a belief
in God, I really don't see what common things there are. If what you say is true, I could easily become a Bahai, and you could become a Hindu. After all, if you're right, they're the same. All this external stuff is irrelevant.

But I say all the 'external' stuff is totally interwoven with the internal stuff. (Thanks Carlita) The architecture of a Hindu temple isn't just some random design so it looks beautiful, but a physical representation of what ancient sages saw - architecture that would be conducive to the purposes of the Hindu religion. Not just conducive, but an intricate part of it. So when a Hindu like me enters a Hindu temple, stuff happens. As far as I know Bahais have no similar concept,

 

[siti]

...those who have a negative attitude towards religion and God will always put a negative spin on these things to try and degrade religion.

I am not the one doing the spinning here - almost everything that you have said about Muhammad (let alone Krishna and Moses) is contrary to what we know from both the historical record and the religious traditions of their followers. It seems you have much greater faith in the unsubstantiated 19th century interpretations of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l'Baha than the accounts Muslim historians who were much closer to the time of Muhammad - for example ibn Ishaq who compiled the biography of Muhammad only about a hundred years after the events and ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari who produced the edited versions and recensions of ibn Ishaq's account that we know today in the early 9th century. Of course we have to treat the early historical accounts with some caution - but it is very doubtful IMO that they would have been completely mistaken about the violent nature of early Islam - or would have invented such an idea if it were untrue. In any case, by the time of his death, Muhammad had subjugated the entire Arabian Peninsula - that certainly is a matter of undisputed historical record and I cannot for the life of me see how such a programmed, expansionist military offensive could be justified as an act of 'self-defense'. The Abdul Baha quote you posted is pure spin - I am merely citing facts.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It still excludes the non-mystical faiths though. How do Bahai explain that?

Which Faiths do you mean in particular?

 

[Vinayaka]

Which Faiths do you mean in particular?

The fundamentalists in Christianity, in Islam, the scholarly ones in Hinduism. I meant the portions of religions that aren't mystically inclined. Lots aren't, but then I'm still not sure on what you mean by mysticism at all.