How are these Great Beings explained?

[Dawnofhope]

This is really getting back to my contention in this thread overall...you could make the same argument about the Hindu scriptures, the Torah, the Christian scriptures...even, to a lesser extent, the Qur'an. So how do we really know what Moses, Krishna or Jesus really said or did? Or even if any of them really existed as a single individual even roughly corresponding to the mythological characters that their 'followers' have morphed them into?

There are degrees of authenticity in regards to both the Great Educators and what they teach. This isn't going to be so much of a problem for the Baha'i faith that has made great efforts to restore the original writings we have of our founders.

Historical analysis helps. However Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation of God has some authority in confirming the 'relative' authenticity of the Christian and Islamic scriptures. While confirming the Divine inspiration of both Krishna and Buddha there simply isn't the same endorsement of Their presumed teachings. We have little certainty therefore with these religions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Baha'i faith in these past manifestations or incarnations of God is based solely on the revelations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah? So the only way of knowing that the "Great Beings" of the past really existed is if that fact is divinely revealed by a new "Great Being" - a more recent manifestation of God incarnate? The rest of us have to make do with second-hand hearsay evidence to confirm their historicity?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Perhaps I've answered the question above.

I take your point about the democratic organization of the Baha'i religion (not unique exactly but unusual), but you are surely not claiming that the notion of democratic governance was divinely revealed to an Iranian prophet in the 1860s? I think you'll find that idea has been around for some considerable time quite independent of any of the Great Educators mentioned in this thread and that he might very well have got the idea from a rather more mundane source. Don't you think?

Democracy goes back to the Greeks. However we have a Manifestation of God from an Islamic autocratic theocratic empire that had become regressive and oppressive. Baha'u'llah during the 1860/70s prescribes democracy as the remedy for the worlds ills. He writes to Queen Victoria praising her for the implementation of democratic rule and the abolition of slavery. To the Czar of Russia a dire warning about providing for the welfare of His people. 100 years after His passing during 1992 the Encyclopaedia Britannica declares that the Baha'i Faith is the second most widespread religion in the world second only to Christianity. The overall number may be small with between 5 - 7 million followers but it has established in every country with nearly 20,000 local and national spiritual assemblies.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is really getting back to my contention in this thread overall...you could make the same argument about the Hindu scriptures, the Torah, the Christian scriptures...even, to a lesser extent, the Qur'an. So how do we really know what Moses, Krishna or Jesus really said or did? Or even if any of them really existed as a single individual even roughly corresponding to the mythological characters that their 'followers' have morphed them into?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Baha'i faith in these past manifestations or incarnations of God is based solely on the revelations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah? So the only way of knowing that the "Great Beings" of the past really existed is if that fact is divinely revealed by a new "Great Being" - a more recent manifestation of God incarnate? The rest of us have to make do with second-hand hearsay evidence to confirm their historicity?

The latest Manifestations clear up the confusion and cut through the man made doctrines to give us an unadulterated portrayal of the truth which has become muddied over the centuries.

Even as Christ said John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.. (refers to Baha'u'llah)

So the information current amongst men, even of their own Faith is not entirely accurate and can only be validated by another Manifestation of God Who has perfect knowledge. So therefore from Baha'u'llah's teachings we can know what really what. Ask any question and there is a clarification in the Baha'i Writings we we believe is authoritative.


I take your point about the democratic organization of the Baha'i religion (not unique exactly but unusual), but you are surely not claiming that the notion of democratic governance was divinely revealed to an Iranian prophet in the 1860s? I think you'll find that idea has been around for some considerable time quite independent of any of the Great Educators mentioned in this thread and that he might very well have got the idea from a rather more mundane source. Don't you think?

 

[omega2xx]

When Jesus was on the cross did he wait for the Roman soldiers to apologise before asking God to forgive them?

Why did Jesus ask God to forgive them? The didn't know what t hey were doing. Ignorance of harm may be an excuse, but for most it is not. Many non-believers in this forum are very insulting towards conservative Christians. I don't hold that against them for 2 reason: they are ignorant of Christianity and some people are just rude and insulting by thei nature. I don't hold that against them, I know it would happen. I do point out heir rudeness if it is too insulting.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Luke 23:24

I see you know the answer before I ask.

Mt 5:23-24 - Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the alwar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

Reconciliation requires forgiveness on the part of the harmed party and it is more important than religious duty.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for your post Carlita. You raise some interesting points.

My whole point rests on: If Bahai says they are in unity with selective faiths, there has to be an agreement between both parties without either one telling each other they are "misguided; lost; wrong; or anything like that."

You are talking about two different kinds of unity here. (1) Unity of the Manifestations of God where you are presuming they should be saying the same thing. (2) Unity of the followers of different Faiths, for example the Baha'is being unified with the Buddhists. Because they are two quite different points we need to better understand what we mean when we talk about "unity'.

The Manifestations of God provide two types of teachings. One that is universal such as aspiring to being virtuous and moral. The other teachings that are relevant to a particular time and people eg laws of prayer, fasting, marriage To complicate matters there may be an emphasis on some teachings and not others depending on the people, circumstances, and period of history.

Another aspect to consider is each revelation is expressed in a language that uses the concepts, culture, and symbols that the recipient is familiar with.

In regards to unity between different believers of different faiths this is another matter and comes through the reality of inhabiting the same social space and having to cooperate and make decisions together. It is a process where we come to better understand each other because we have to. We're one people inhabiting one planet whether we like it or not.

I would recommend you read posts #95 and #96 where there is more thorough explanation around these critical issues.

They have to be in perfect accord to bring world peace.

I think of it as a process and there being degrees of perfection.

My second point is you cannot single out a couple of great educators out of thousands in the world. That alone limits world peace in the limitations of Bahai interpretations rather than an agreement between all parties involved.

The Baha'i revelation refers specifically to Baha'u'llah, The Bab, Muhammad, Christ, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, and Krishna, and Abraham. Of course you can single them out. Sure there are many great and wise peoples that have had great influence. We argue that there is a more profound and mysterious process behind the Great Educators called God and the evidence is the influence of their Teachings that has endured centuries and over many lands.

This is a huge issue. You are basically calling those who do practice The Buddha's teachings and those who do believe in it's authenticity misguided.

I didn't say that. I simply brought into question their authenticity and I'm saying we have no way of knowing for certain. That's very different from saying their followers are misguided.

Bahai agrees with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't agree with Bahai. They have to match for them to be in union with each other. It doesn't matter if the Bahai says "we agree" and the Buddhist say "we agree." The issue is the Dharma does not agree with Bahualluah's claims. It is the other way around.

Perhaps a crucial difference between us is that I believe in an Omniscient, All-Powerful, Transcendent, and yet unknowable essence called God. That God has revealed Himself through Baha'u'llah and so His teachings I consider to be authentic and have authority. Although I believe Buddha to have been inspired by this same God, the religion is 2,500 years old and there is uncertainty about available 'sacred' texts. From what we do have available I have provided examples of similarities with the Baha'i writings. I do see your point but Baha'is are not waiting around timidly for approval and agreement from other religionists. Nor does the rejection of those religionists invalidate Baha'u'llahs teaching.

Remember, it has to go both ways.

Bahaullah has no authority to speak for other religions and their teachings, scripture, or Dharma. Christ has authority to speak for Christian scripture. Muhammad of the Quran. The Buddha and Hindu over the Dharma. Not Bahaullah and not The Bab. Neither of them are Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist or Jewish for that matter. They can't speak for other people's faiths. Even Christians don't speak for other people they just say they are wrong.

This maybe the hardest pill to swallow but because Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God He has complete authority to speak about what these others Manifestations really taught. Gods knowledge is supreme over mans knowledge. To a large extent each of the ancient religions have lost their way and many of the teachings have little to do with what the founder really taught.

I know it is your belief but can you see why it is a contradiction?

Are you saying everyone else doesn't know their own faith but Bahaullah?

Everyone knows their Faith but the All-Knowing God knows best.

Divinity is not soley from a creator. Things and people are sacred in many religions and traditions that have nothing to do with a creator. You are attributing adjectives that The Bab and Bahaullah share with The Buddha, Krishna, Christ, and Muhammad but not understanding the nature of these adjectives are from different sources thereby not the same thing as the Bahai point of view. Since they are not equal, they are not in union.

Baha'is consider God as the source of all creation and is the supreme talisman.

My whole point is if you are going to be in union with other selective religions, those religions and religious (since the Sangha and Church is part of the religion) has to agree with B/BH. It cannot be one sided. The B/BH interpretation has no authority over other Christ, The Buddha, Muhammad, and Krishna's words.

Do you understand?

I understand very well where you are coming from and you express it so well. Thank you for another well considered post.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Mt 5:23-24 - Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the alwar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

Reconciliation requires forgiveness on the part of the harmed party and it is more important than religious duty.

That's very true. The important aspect is Jesus is asking us to initiate reconciliation, not wait around for our brother to reconcile with us and then feel aggrieved because he doesn't. Once we have done our best to reconcile, we should love and forgive the person even if he does not wish to reconcile. This is not an easy thing to do.

Baha'is should neither give or take offence. That doesn't mean we should accept rude and insulting behaviour from others. However if my best efforts to courteously ask my brother to change falls on deaf ears should I take offence?

 

[omega2xx]

That's very true. The important aspect is Jesus is asking us to initiate reconciliation, not wait around for our brother to reconcile with us and then feel aggrieved because he doesn't. Once we have done our best to reconcile, we should love and forgive the person even if he does not wish to reconcile. This is not an easy thing to do.

IMO you are 2/3 right. WE do need to love him but still IMO, we only forgive when they acknowledge the harm they have done. That is what God requires of us when we sin against Him. You are also right that is is not an easy thing to love those who have sinned against us in some way. Requiring confession means admitting guilt. If they do not feel guilt, they have not learned anything.

Baha'is should neither give or take offence. That doesn't mean we should accept rude and insulting behaviour from others. However if my best efforts to courteously ask my brother to change falls on deaf ears should I take offence?

Right. WE can only do o9ur part. That is all God expects of us. If they refuse to be reconciled, that is their problem. It now come between them and God, not them and us.

 

[Windwalker]

The counterfeit Dhamma does not teach the oneness of God. The true Dhamma did.

Is there some evidence to support that it did? Can you point me to that? All this says is that there are those who "won't get it" and teach these things mean something else. Jesus said the same things. I say the same things. But where do you get this, "They used to teach worshipping God.". You can't just make that up out of thin air without any corroborating evidence. What is that evidence that supports your claim here?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Satans serrated edge... gulp....I suppose you seek my neck in the noose?

Just asking where people understand they got their power and influence from considering they mostly were poor and without power yet their influence spread all over the world and they are still winning hearts and minds today thousands of years after their death.

Mostly post humously, by cleric, appropriation of previous culture, and of course the sword.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand very well where you are coming from and you express it so well. Thank you for another well considered post.

I hope Loverofhumanity shares understanding as well. This will be somewhat mismash given the word limit. I appreciate you understanding what I say.

Yes but change is a part of this world and the Buddha said things would change and another Buddha named Mettya would come and bring a new religion and so I assume that Buddhists would turn to Mettya as it was the Buddha Who spoke of Him.

All Dharma is unchanging and always here. Mettya is no special than The Buddha himself because all buddhas (not The Buddha) are enlightened. That, and I had to look up the name. It seems Mettya is also Maitreya. If that be the case, Maitrya is not a Buddha he is a Bodhisattva who has been predicted to come and continue The Buddha's teachings not change the teachings. Buddha would have a field day if you changed his teachings especially adding a creator in the mix.

Buddhist turn to The Buddha Dharma. Not The Buddha himself as if he were god. Instead, The Buddha holds knowledge and to someone schools they go to The Buddha for knowledge of The Dharma while others go straight to The Dharma itself. It depends. But B/BH has no place in interpreting The Buddha Dharma.

Now if Mettya says things that the Buddha did not, isn't He still right because the Buddha already confirmed He was the Buddha of the future to which His followers should turn.

No. He isn't a messiah, prophet, or great teacher. If he says things that The Buddha did not say, he is changing what The Buddha told him to do to keep his teachings. The buddhas are to preserve and teach the teachings of the original Buddha.

His teachings aren't supernatural. They are the laws of nature. There is suffering, there is a cause, there is an end. Rebirth exists because everything goes in a cycle. We do decay as The Buddha did (hence why other Buddhas after him expound the law-Nichiren Shonin included, according to Nichiren Buddhism (Ten Tai). What you are talking about is Mahayana Buddhism not Theravada.

Who will teach us when thou art gone? (Had to cut it short).

Why do you need a teacher? That is a form of attachment right there.

You cannot follow The Buddha if you are attach to his teachings; and, even more so, reinterpret his teachings according to B/BH. To me, that is immoral. I would never try to interpret christian teachings if I were never christian. I don't have the right to do that.

Loyalty to the Buddha to me also a means loyalty to Mettya.

It means loyalty to all buddhas. This is a form of attachment. When I went to a Vietnamese temple, we didn't just go to one Buddha and prayed, we went to all Buddhas in the temple and prayed. The Buddha was not replaced with Maitreya but we consider The Buddha Dharma always exist and will exist because his teachings are a part of life. They can't be changed and added to. That's like adding to the laws of nature.

You are talking about two different kinds of unity here.

Unity among diversity means each party must agree and be in concord with each other regardless of their differing beliefs. Unity means respecting each other's differences without making other people's differences, cultures, and language our own. Unity does not involve a creator, The Buddha, Orin, or Muhammad as a single source. Each culture and religion has their own source and need to be respected as such. If B/BH has the right to interpret The Buddha, Hindu, and Christian teachings, he is no longer respecting other faiths and there is no unity. Unless Bahai says "this is right and this is wrong"' what you are saying is immoral and its not factual. I mean, I agree with having world peace and I understand that you'd like The Buddha, Krishna, and Christ to be great manifestation of the creator; but, you have to be in concord with each other. Christ would never consider the B/BH any more than a person. Krishna would be completely out the picture because you don't recognize more than one creator and Hindu has many. Vishnu (Krishna) is just one of them. You have to acknowledge that The Buddha can't be all knowing and enlightened but then misguided and don't know he is a manifestation of a god he does not believe in. It's all illogical.

The Manifestations of God provide two types of teachings. One that is universal such as aspiring to being virtuous and moral. The other teachings that are relevant to a particular time and people eg laws of prayer, fasting, marriage To complicate matters there may be an emphasis on some teachings and not others depending on the people, circumstances, and period of history.

Yes. The issue is if you consider Muhammad a great teacher just as Krishna, and Christ you have contradicting teachings and practices each party would not agree that the other is teaching correctly. To The Buddha (hence all Buddhas) these are attachments. If you believe in a creator, it is an attachment. Mettya cannot change The Buddha's teachings any more than you or I.

Another aspect to consider is each revelation is expressed in a language that uses the concepts, culture, and symbols that the recipient is familiar with.

They are different. They contradict each other. So they can't be a union.

The Baha'i revelation refers specifically to Baha'u'llah, The Bab, Muhammad, Christ, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, and Krishna, and Abraham. Of course you can single them out. Sure there are many great and wise peoples that have had great influence. We argue that there is a more profound and mysterious process behind the Great Educators called God and the evidence is the influence of their Teachings that has endured centuries and over many lands.

That's your right to believe but the fact is these people teach totally different things and the source of their teachings are completely different from each other that to claim they are educators of one creator is really putting down The Buddha and Hindu teachings. Christ taught there is only one Educator (upper E) that is great and he did not even consider himself good. Muhammad would never see B/BH as more than human created by god not sent by god.

I didn't say that. I simply brought into question their authenticity and I'm saying we have no way of knowing for certain. That's very different from saying their followers are misguided.

I don't know who said it but it was said that their teachings were not correct and that the believers of these religions are misguided because of their incorrect teachings. Then the same page, one Pagan mentioned about the Pagan gods and one of you mentioned them referred to as comic book characters. The whole page of that dialogue was an insult to Pagans, Hindu, Christian, and most likely Buddhist as well.

In another section, one of you posted that the teachings of these people have been changed and miscued throughout the years. This is ignoring the oral and traditions that many Buddhist hold dear and kept and know more than B/BH and any other person including myself and you.

Perhaps a crucial difference between us is that I believe in an Omniscient, All-Powerful, Transcendent, and yet unknowable essence called God. That God has revealed Himself through Baha'u'llah and so His teachings I consider to be authentic and have authority.

If I were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Pagan and believed in god(s), I'd be deeply insulted that B/BH has any place in interpreting my faith and the faith of others. That's side stepping a lot of people who know more about their faith than both of us. I mean, I don't agree with any of the faiths (I don't believe in Pagan deities, for example) but in my practice and moral outlook, I (and no ancestor and spirit I believe in) would and have the right to interpret your faith as a Bahai and any other person's faith.

I don't have an authority behind the source of my practice. If I did, my views about other religions would be the same.

This maybe the hardest pill to swallow but because Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God He has complete authority to speak about what these others Manifestations really taught.

That's the crux of our conversation. Do you understand why and how what you are saying is factually not true even though you disagree with it?

For example, if a kid was telling me two and two is five and put up an extra finger accidentally, I understand why he got the answer wrong. It is factually wrong even though I understand and believe why he got that answer. What we (and the child) believes does not always align with facts. That is okay. Religion isn't a science book. It does need to be logical, though.

Baha'is consider God as the source of all creation and is the supreme talisman.

My concern is how Krishna and The Buddha became part of your faith. I agree they are great teachers in their own right but I don't see Krishna as great according to my practice. I agree with all of The Buddha's teachings but I choose not to practice them.

It does not make sense that The Buddha can be a manifestation of a god he does not believe in. You'd think because he is enlightened, he would know this. If you are saying he does not, then that's really calling The Buddha misguided, ignorant (does not know), and/or lying because the practice, source, and method of enlightenment does not involve a creator.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The counterfeit Dhamma does not teach the oneness of God. The true Dhamma did.

Counterfeit Dharma? There are over a thousand suttas. That is a direct insult to many Buddhist who know by experience and direct devotion about The Dharma more than any non-buddhist: B/BH, you, and I included.

All Dharma supports each other. No Dharma says The Buddha believes in a creator. That calling The Buddha a lier in his teachings of attachment and opposition to Hindu gods.

How can you say something like that?

 

[Tabu]

I'm always looking to learn more about Krishna. We accept Him as an integral part of our Faith. In our Houses of Worship in all our services, we include readings from the Bhagavad-Gita.

We also believe that His Tenth Avatar, Kalki has returned in the Person of Baha'u'llah.

Though we (BKs) agree that the Source of knowledge of all the Souls is The one Ocean of Knowledge ,
We disagree that Bahaullah could be the Tenth Avatar of Krishna , because the foremost souls which enter the Golden age complete 8 births in Golden age and 14 births in Silver Age , completing a total of 20 birth in this blissful period of reward called Heaven.
By the end of Kalyug and beginning of Confluence age ( which is now) , the foremost souls complete 84 births , so apparently from our view Bahaullah being Avataar of Krishna is impossible.
I also doubt if Bahaullah himself made such a claim or later missionaries of Bahai faith added this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@loverofhumanity @adrian009
I will use Buddhist sources as well since the Dali Lama were quoted even though that isn't a sutta itself. These are from various Buddhist, scholars, and I will try to quote from suttas and sutras themselves.

1. The Buddha rejects god-concepts. ~GodConcepts

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.​

The gods in buddhism are not creators. They have supernatural powers just as Devas do. When The Buddha sat with a multitude of people in the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra, he addressed them, his disciples, and laymen all together. There was no hierarchy between his audience only, in this particular sutra, himself as an enlightened person compared to others whom he believed will be enlightened when they follow the Dharma.

2. The only person who is "said" (by his disciples writing the sutta) to have supernatural powers is The Enlightened One. (And any enlightened one/buddha)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html

"Only when the Enlightened One moved gently from the spot through supernatural powers, could he be dissuaded from his intention to sacrifice himself (J 533)."​

In Bahai I am assuming only god is the creator and I am assuming only god is The enlightened one while others are great teachers and prophets but not the creator himself.

3. The Pure Land school seems the closest to what you're saying. But again, The Buddha was the first enlightened one and from there other buddhas became enlightened.



Jesus Christ was sent by the creator; and, unlike The Buddha who rejected any god-concept, he did admit he was sent by the creator. Many people see him as a great educator. There's nothing wrong with that.

1. Jesus is the only way to god, and only the prophets and himself were sent by god to save people. So, The B/BH are not in scripture; so, according to christianity, they are not sent by god.

Jesus is the only One to have come down from heaven and returned there (John 3:13). He is the only person to have lived a perfect human life (Hebrews 4:15). He is the only sacrifice for sin (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:26). He alone fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). He is the only man to have conquered death forever (Hebrews 2:14–15). He is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only man whom God has “exalted . . . to the highest place” (Philippians 2:9).​

It is not wrong to believe in christ. Just understand that christ did not agree to anyone being prophets but those he mentioned in the NT and himself as his disciples call him the Highest Prophet. In this, he not the Bab not Muhammad are the only ones sent by god. You can't say The B/BH and Christ are both sent by god" and expect scripture to support The B/BH unless you are saying that christ is misguided or his teachings have been changed. This is what one of you said in your posts that the teachings of educators have been changed and that B/BH has the actual teachings.

This is your belief but when comparing the facts of Bahai claims and the actual religions, they are false.



Likewise, Muhammad made it more simple to understand then Christ did.

Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of God and the last (end) of the Prophets. And God is Ever All-Aware of everything. S. 33:40 Hilali-Khan​

B/BH are not the last prophets sent by the creator according to Islam. Only Muhammad. They do acknowledge prophets of the bible and quran but I havent heard of a Muslim acknowledging prophets of Bahai. However, they do say everyone is a child by god. Only selective people are sent by god. B/BH are not one of them.



Krishna (Vishnu) cannot be sent as a manifestation of god because he is god.

Christ can't be a manifestation of god because mainstream christianity says he is god.

The Buddha can't be a manifestation of god because as an enlightened person, he would know this but enlightenment does not involve a creator; so, he is not a manifestation of one.

Muhammad is not a manifestation of god because he is not god and never says he is. He is a creation of god just as christians claim as well.

These are the facts of these individual religions. I can believe that a spoon can fly and enhance my spirituality, that isn't a problem. Can you see that even though the manifestations are moral to you, it isn't logical from the perspective of that religion and not your own (B/BH)?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you again for your response.

I hope Loverofhumanity shares understanding as well. This will be somewhat mismash given the word limit. I appreciate you understanding what I say.

I think it is important not to lump all Baha'is together as I'm sure you would not want all Pagans to be tarred with the same brush. We are all on a journey of making better sense of the world we live in. Baha'is in my experience are generally humble enough to recognise their limitations and imperfections and look towards Baha'u'llah as our source of guidance and inspiration.

Unity among diversity means each party must agree and be in concord with each other regardless of their differing beliefs. Unity means respecting each other's differences without making other people's differences, cultures, and language our own. Unity does not involve a creator, The Buddha, Orin, or Muhammad as a single source. Each culture and religion has their own source and need to be respected as such. If B/BH has the right to interpret The Buddha, Hindu, and Christian teachings, he is no longer respecting other faiths and there is no unity. Unless Bahai says "this is right and this is wrong"' what you are saying is immoral and its not factual. I mean, I agree with having world peace and I understand that you'd like The Buddha, Krishna, and Christ to be great manifestation of the creator; but, you have to be in concord with each other. Christ would never consider the B/BH any more than a person. Krishna would be completely out the picture because you don't recognize more than one creator and Hindu has many. Vishnu (Krishna) is just one of them. You have to acknowledge that The Buddha can't be all knowing and enlightened but then misguided and don't know he is a manifestation of a god he does not believe in. It's all illogical.

Logic like beauty can be in the eye of the beholder. What seems illogical to you makes perfect sense to me. However I understand the contradictions and inconsistencies you perceive in the Baha'i position and once again you have expressed your view very clearly.

Not every world view is correct whether its based on religion or not. Ultimate reality is One as is Truth. However we can not comprehend the Incomprehensible. All attempts to express Truth are limited by language and our finite human minds. In a sense all human truth is relative.

Once we have a world view that will inevitably bring us into conflict with other world views. Often our worldviews will have something to say about other worldviews whether directly or indirectly. We can not escape this.

Lets not overplay the 'being insulted' position. If we want conversations like these we need to be prepared to wisely express our views and listen to others. We also need to take care not to give offence or take offence. Otherwise its best not to have the conversation in the first place.

So what are Baha'is saying about Krishna and Buddha? That they are Divinely inspired by the Unknowable Reality the monotheists call God. Maybe that is offensive to Buddhists and Hindus. However its much better than saying they are Satan's instruments leading their hapless followers astray.

The Baha'i position is to consort with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. Is that offensive? Its better than hate them, shun them, and if they don't convert to my religion kill them.

They are different. They contradict each other. So they can't be a union.

I do believe I have explained why they appear contradictory in my last post. I accept this is your belief but I look to God's unerring guidance to humanity.

I don't know who said it but it was said that their teachings were not correct and that the believers of these religions are misguided because of their incorrect teachings. Then the same page, one Pagan mentioned about the Pagan gods and one of you mentioned them referred to as comic book characters. The whole page of that dialogue was an insult to Pagans, Hindu, Christian, and most likely Buddhist as well.

I think its very important to be clear about who said what to whom. I don't know the page you refer. If I said something that you consider wrong and offensive I am happy to discuss it. As much as I love my brother I am not my brother's keeper, and he is not mine

In another section, one of you posted that the teachings of these people have been changed and miscued throughout the years. This is ignoring the oral and traditions that many Buddhist hold dear and kept and know more than B/BH and any other person including myself and you.

You see the problem

If I were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Pagan and believed in god(s), I'd be deeply insulted that B/BH has any place in interpreting my faith and the faith of others.

Clearly the Muslims we insulted tried and eradicate the Baha'i Faith in its early days killing thousands, torturing, and doing all manner of unspeakable things. It is happening now. It will continue. The Baha'is have a message of peace and love. Baha'u'llah met with few Westerners. However In 1890 Professor Edward Granville Browne of Cambridge University met Bahá’u’lláh in four successive interviews. Professor Browne wrote of his first meeting: "The face of Him on Whom I gazed I can never forget, though I cannot describe it. Those piercing eyes seemed to read one's very soul; power and authority sat on that ample brow.… No need to ask in whose presence I stood, as I bowed myself before one who is the object of a devotion and love which kings might envy and emperors sigh for in vain."

Bahá’u’lláh stated at that meeting:

"… That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled — what harm is there in this? … Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most Great Peace' shall come.… Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind."

That's the crux of our conversation. Do you understand why and how what you are saying is factually not true even though you disagree with it?

Believe me, I get it

For example, if a kid was telling me two and two is five and put up an extra finger accidentally, I understand why he got the answer wrong. It is factually wrong even though I understand and believe why he got that answer. What we (and the child) believes does not always align with facts. That is okay. Religion isn't a science book. It does need to be logical, though.

Religion does need to be logical, for certain.

My concern is how Krishna and The Buddha became part of your faith. I agree they are great teachers in their own right but I don't see Krishna as great according to my practice. I agree with all of The Buddha's teachings but I choose not to practice them.

It does not make sense that The Buddha can be a manifestation of a god he does not believe in. You'd think because he is enlightened, he would know this. If you are saying he does not, then that's really calling The Buddha misguided, ignorant (does not know), and/or lying because the practice, source, and method of enlightenment does not involve a creator.

Krishna and Buddha became part of the Baha'i faith because the Omnipotent, All-Powerful God inspired them. Later He inspired Baha'u'llah who through his revelation explained the source of Buddha and Krishna's inspiration being from the same God. That is the Baha'i position, agree with it or not. I know little about either Buddhism and Hinduism. You feel you have some knowledge. Lets investigate whether or not they really do contradict as you say.

 

[loverofhumanity]

@loverofhumanity @adrian009
I will use Buddhist sources as well since the Dali Lama were quoted even though that isn't a sutta itself. These are from various Buddhist, scholars, and I will try to quote from suttas and sutras themselves.

1. The Buddha rejects god-concepts. ~GodConcepts

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.​

The gods in buddhism are not creators. They have supernatural powers just as Devas do. When The Buddha sat with a multitude of people in the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra, he addressed them, his disciples, and laymen all together. There was no hierarchy between his audience only, in this particular sutra, himself as an enlightened person compared to others whom he believed will be enlightened when they follow the Dharma.

2. The only person who is "said" (by his disciples writing the sutta) to have supernatural powers is The Enlightened One. (And any enlightened one/buddha)

"Only when the Enlightened One moved gently from the spot through supernatural powers, could he be dissuaded from his intention to sacrifice himself (J 533)."​

In Bahai I am assuming only god is the creator and I am assuming only god is The enlightened one while others are great teachers and prophets but not the creator himself.

3. The Pure Land school seems the closest to what you're saying. But again, The Buddha was the first enlightened one and from there other buddhas became enlightened.



Jesus Christ was sent by the creator; and, unlike The Buddha who rejected any god-concept, he did admit he was sent by the creator. Many people see him as a great educator. There's nothing wrong with that.

1. Jesus is the only way to god, and only the prophets and himself were sent by god to save people. So, The B/BH are not in scripture; so, according to christianity, they are not sent by god.

Jesus is the only One to have come down from heaven and returned there (John 3:13). He is the only person to have lived a perfect human life (Hebrews 4:15). He is the only sacrifice for sin (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:26). He alone fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). He is the only man to have conquered death forever (Hebrews 2:14–15). He is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only man whom God has “exalted . . . to the highest place” (Philippians 2:9).​

It is not wrong to believe in christ. Just understand that christ did not agree to anyone being prophets but those he mentioned in the NT and himself as his disciples call him the Highest Prophet. In this, he not the Bab not Muhammad are the only ones sent by god. You can't say The B/BH and Christ are both sent by god" and expect scripture to support The B/BH unless you are saying that christ is misguided or his teachings have been changed. This is what one of you said in your posts that the teachings of educators have been changed and that B/BH has the actual teachings.

This is your belief but when comparing the facts of Bahai claims and the actual religions, they are false.



Likewise, Muhammad made it more simple to understand then Christ did.

Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of God and the last (end) of the Prophets. And God is Ever All-Aware of everything. S. 33:40 Hilali-Khan​

B/BH are not the last prophets sent by the creator according to Islam. Only Muhammad. They do acknowledge prophets of the bible and quran but I havent heard of a Muslim acknowledging prophets of Bahai. However, they do say everyone is a child by god. Only selective people are sent by god. B/BH are not one of them.



Krishna (Vishnu) cannot be sent as a manifestation of god because he is god.

Christ can't be a manifestation of god because mainstream christianity says he is god.

The Buddha can't be a manifestation of god because as an enlightened person, he would know this but enlightenment does not involve a creator; so, he is not a manifestation of one.

Muhammad is not a manifestation of god because he is not god and never says he is. He is a creation of god just as christians claim as well.

These are the facts of these individual religions. I can believe that a spoon can fly and enhance my spirituality, that isn't a problem. Can you see that even though the manifestations are moral to you, it isn't logical from the perspective of that religion and not your own (B/BH)?

Firstly, please understand that a Manifestation of God is not an incarnation of God but a reflection of Him.

Next. None of the Words of the Holy Books have been changed physically only misinterpreted by men according to Bahaullah.

We believe there is really in essence only one Faith.

"This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past eternal in the future - Baha'u'llah.

All the Teachers, Prophets, Messiahs are, according to Bahaullah essentially one in essence...

" If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor!"

With regards to their separate worldly missions He says..

"The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. "

There is no contradiction only diversity as to their Missions but their essential unity is clear. That's why you find the Golden Rule throughout all Faiths yet at the same time different laws as the age required with the different missions.

Can you understand a bit how we see them all as One?

As far as interpretation goes. We believe that Baha'u'llah is the Promised One foretold in all the Holy Books so therefore He has a mandate to correct any misinterpretations or misunderstandings the followers may have accumulated over time.

People who have grown fond of a certain tradition may find it almost impossible to accept being told what they understand is wrong and that's why These Souks were persecuted because they dared question the status quo.

Baha'u'llah has made a claim that Buddha taught the oneness of God and that another Prophet came after Muhammad and so on , so He will be a test for all religions.

But what if He is the Fifth Buddha and is telling the truth? Can we ever say to ourselves "I cannot possible be wrong"?

Part of detachment is the ability to question our own selves and whether we understand correctly or not. We need to always keep an open mind.

About why Buddha and Krishna are a part of the Baha'i Faith. There was only ever one evolving, progressively revealed religion. Let's start for example with Buddha. When Buddha appeared all Hindus should have accepted Him and His teachings, then Buddhists in turn should have accepted Christ and Christians Muhammad and Muslims accepted the Bab and Baha'u'llah because all the Teachers and prophets are linked and related. They confirm the Teacher gone before and all prophesy the next one to come and all the Teachers and Prophets prophesied a Great One to Come.

Baha'u'llah is only uniting what should never have been broken and disunited in the first place. Some for power others for wealth refused to accept the new Buddha when He appeared so humanity got bogged down by groups of people,left over who didn't accept the latest Teacher which they were told would appear.

About comic books. Someone mentioned Odin and Odin is a mythological god so I apologise if I caused any offense but it was not said with the intention to offend.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Though we (BKs) agree that the Source of knowledge of all the Souls is The one Ocean of Knowledge ,
We disagree that Bahaullah could be the Tenth Avatar of Krishna , because the foremost souls which enter the Golden age complete 8 births in Golden age and 14 births in Silver Age , completing a total of 20 birth in this blissful period of reward called Heaven.
By the end of Kalyug and beginning of Confluence age ( which is now) , the foremost souls complete 84 births , so apparently from our view Bahaullah being Avataar of Krishna is impossible.
I also doubt if Bahaullah himself made such a claim or later missionaries of Bahai faith added this.

Thanks for your comments. We can agree on Krishna and the Bhagavad-Gita so we are not doing too bad are we friend?

As to Him being Kalki Avatar these are the Words of Baha'u'llah Himself

"The time fore-ordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 12-13.

In God Passes By the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith it says clearly that..

“To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the "Most Great Spirit," the "Tenth Avatar," the "Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna.”

Excerpt From: Effendi, Shoghi. “God Passes By.”

This link goes into the time calculation, place and even city where Kalki is to appear.

Bhartiya Baha'i: HINDUISM AND THE BAHÁ’I FAITH

 

[loverofhumanity]

Counterfeit Dharma? There are over a thousand suttas. That is a direct insult to many Buddhist who know by experience and direct devotion about The Dharma more than any non-buddhist: B/BH, you, and I included.

All Dharma supports each other. No Dharma says The Buddha believes in a creator. That calling The Buddha a lier in his teachings of attachment and opposition to Hindu gods.

How can you say something like that?

The Buddha is completely truthful and honest as we believe and accept Him too. Please refer to your own scriptures regarding the counterfeit Dhamma, they are the Buddha's Words.

So both our religions believe in Buddha. The differing understandings is with what the followers understand. We believe Buddha originally taught the oneness of God but that this teaching was lost.

This statement about a counterfeit Dhamma arising and replacing the true Dhamma does not mean that the actual Words of the Buddha were effaced but that the wrong interpretations prevailed about there not being a God.

English translation of SN 16.13, “The Counterfeit of the True Dhamma”

"There is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, and therefore there is an escape from the born, created, formed, originated. If it were not for the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there would be no escape from the born, created, formed, originated, but because there is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there is an escape, there is liberation from the born, created, formed, originated (Udana VIII.3).

Why couldn't this statement by Buddha not be interpreted as referring to God?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think it is important not to lump all Baha'is together as I'm sure you would not want all Pagans to be tarred with the same brush.

Tarred? I'm quite sure you meant "painted", or at least I hope so. And are you not striving for unity and oneness? That alone would warrant "lumping all Baha'is together".

If we want conversations like these we need to be prepared to wisely express our views and listen to others. We also need to take care not to give offence or take offence. Otherwise its best not to have the conversation in the first place.

Some very good advise. Are Baha'is willing to take it? I don't think the Hindus and Buddhists that have been speaking to you don't misunderstand what your saying about Krishna and Buddha, they disagree. And when an adherent gets what you're saying, but tries to inform you that you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting their faiths, you would be wise to listen.

And so far as giving offense? You do that when you ignore entire cultures and faiths that don't live up to your criteria. For a group trying to vie for world unity and peace, you're not off to a great start.

The Baha'i position is to consort with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. Is that offensive? Its better than hate them, shun them, and if they don't convert to my religion kill them.

Only, you do shun some. You say you wish to consort with people of all faiths, but this is a disingenuous claim when we can clearly see this not being the case with Pagan religions. Proving quite plainly that words are wind.

About comic books. Someone mentioned Odin and Odin is a mythological god so I apologise if I caused any offense but it was not said with the intention to offend.

All gods are mythological, and myth is a far cry from comic books. I do not accept your apology, and assert that you did say it with the intention to dismiss, uncaring if it offended or not.

Actually, in addition to that no one compares the god of another person to comic book characters without the intention to offend. So take your disingenuous apology and do something about it; actually learn about the cultures that you so readily and unwisely dismiss. For when you treat us like that, you make us your enemy, and one had best know their enemy, at the very least.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Tarred? I'm quite sure you meant "painted", or at least I hope so. And are you not striving for unity and oneness? That alone would warrant "lumping all Baha'is together".


Some very good advise. Are Baha'is willing to take it? I don't think the Hindus and Buddhists that have been speaking to you don't misunderstand what your saying about Krishna and Buddha, they disagree. And when an adherent gets what you're saying, but tries to inform you that you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting their faiths, you would be wise to listen.

And so far as giving offense? You do that when you ignore entire cultures and faiths that don't live up to your criteria. For a group trying to vie for world unity and peace, you're not off to a great start.


Only, you do shun some. You say you wish to consort with people of all faiths, but this is a disingenuous claim when we can clearly see this not being the case with Pagan religions. Proving quite plainly that words are wind.


All gods are mythological, and myth is a far cry from comic books. I do not accept your apology, and assert that you did say it with the intention to dismiss, uncaring if it offended or not.

Actually, in addition to that no one compares the god of another person to comic book characters without the intention to offend. So take your disingenuous apology and do something about it; actually learn about the cultures that you so readily and unwisely dismiss. For when you treat us like that, you make us your enemy, and one had best know their enemy, at the very least.

As far as cultures to learn about what do you suggest? I'm happy to learn. Please provide some links or suggestions.

As to all gods being mythical, there is one God that we believe is real.

Paganism is not classified as a religion in our teachings but pagans are people and our Faith is about loving all humanity so that includes pagans, atheists and even enemies of our Faith.

We only classify a religion as a religion that believes in one God. Buddha we believe taught about God so He is included.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

As far as cultures to learn about what do you suggest?

I suggest that when you're about to dismiss something - a culture or religion, even the ones you don't consider to be religions - you instead listen.

As to all gods being mythical, there is one God that we believe is real.

"Mythical" does not mean "not real."

We only classify a religion as a religion that believes in one God.

And yet, you go on about Hinduism. Worse, twisting it to your ends. Which is both arrogant and foolish, not to mention an smidge hypocritical.

If the "Baha'i goal" is to converse with people of all faiths - as I assume you agree with adrian - then you can't very well include all people if you don't consider or include their faith. I retain that you are thus disingenuous. You are not conversing with people of all faiths, you are only conversing with people who believe the same as you already; you're only going on about interpretation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I suggest that when you're about to dismiss something - a culture or religion, even the ones you don't consider to be religions - you instead listen.


"Mythical" does not mean "not real."


And yet, you go on about Hinduism. Worse, twisting it to your ends. Which is both arrogant and foolish, not to mention an smidge hypocritical.

If the "Baha'i goal" is to converse with people of all faiths - as I assume you agree with adrian - then you can't very well include all people if you don't consider or include their faith. I retain that you are thus disingenuous. You are not conversing with people of all faiths, you are only conversing with people who believe the same as you already; you're only going on about interpretation.

I'm listening.